[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-lin-bess-evpn-irb-mcast) 00 01

BESS                                                              W. Lin
Internet-Draft                                                  Z. Zhang
Intended status: Standards Track                                J. Drake
Expires: January 17, 2019                                  E. Rosen, Ed.
                                                  Juniper Networks, Inc.
                                                              J. Rabadan
                                                                   Nokia
                                                              A. Sajassi
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                           July 16, 2018


        EVPN Optimized Inter-Subnet Multicast (OISM) Forwarding
                   draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast-01

Abstract

   Ethernet VPN (EVPN) provides a service that allows a single Local
   Area Network (LAN), comprising a single IP subnet, to be divided into
   multiple "segments".  Each segment may be located at a different
   site, and the segments are interconnected by an IP or MPLS backbone.
   Intra-subnet traffic (either unicast or multicast) always appears to
   the endusers to be bridged, even when it is actually carried over the
   IP or MPLS backbone.  When a single "tenant" owns multiple such LANs,
   EVPN also allows IP unicast traffic to be routed between those LANs.
   This document specifies new procedures that allow inter-subnet IP
   multicast traffic to be routed among the LANs of a given tenant,
   while still making intra-subnet IP multicast traffic appear to be
   bridged.  These procedures can provide optimal routing of the inter-
   subnet multicast traffic, and do not require any such traffic to
   leave a given router and then reenter that same router.  These
   procedures also accommodate IP multicast traffic that needs to travel
   to or from systems that are outside the EVPN domain.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."



Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 17, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.1.  Background  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       1.1.1.  Segments, Broadcast Domains, and Tenants  . . . . . .   4
       1.1.2.  Inter-BD (Inter-Subnet) IP Traffic  . . . . . . . . .   5
       1.1.3.  EVPN and IP Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       1.1.4.  BDs, MAC-VRFS, and EVPN Service Models  . . . . . . .   7
     1.2.  Need for EVPN-aware Multicast Procedures  . . . . . . . .   7
     1.3.  Additional Requirements That Must be Met by the Solution    8
     1.4.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     1.5.  Model of Operation: Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       1.5.1.  Control Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       1.5.2.  Data Plane  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   2.  Detailed Model of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     2.1.  Supplementary Broadcast Domain  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     2.2.  Detecting When a Route is About/For/From a Particular BD   18
     2.3.  Use of IRB Interfaces at Ingress PE . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     2.4.  Use of IRB Interfaces at an Egress PE . . . . . . . . . .  23
     2.5.  Announcing Interest in (S,G)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     2.6.  Tunneling Frames from Ingress PE to Egress PEs  . . . . .  24
     2.7.  Advanced Scenarios  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   3.  EVPN-aware Multicast Solution Control Plane . . . . . . . . .  26
     3.1.  Supplementary Broadcast Domain (SBD) and Route Targets  .  26
     3.2.  Advertising the Tunnels Used for IP Multicast . . . . . .  27
       3.2.1.  Constructing Routes for the SBD . . . . . . . . . . .  27
       3.2.2.  Ingress Replication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
       3.2.3.  Assisted Replication  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
       3.2.4.  BIER  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
       3.2.5.  Inclusive P2MP Tunnels  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
         3.2.5.1.  Using the BUM Tunnels as IP Multicast Inclusive



Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


                   Tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
         3.2.5.2.  Using Wildcard S-PMSI A-D Routes to Advertise
                   Inclusive Tunnels Specific to IP Multicast  . . .  32
       3.2.6.  Selective Tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
     3.3.  Advertising SMET Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
   4.  Constructing Multicast Forwarding State . . . . . . . . . . .  36
     4.1.  Layer 2 Multicast State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
       4.1.1.  Constructing the OIF List . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37
       4.1.2.  Data Plane: Applying the OIF List to an (S,G) Frame .  38
         4.1.2.1.  Eligibility of an AC to Receive a Frame . . . . .  38
         4.1.2.2.  Applying the OIF List . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
     4.2.  Layer 3 Forwarding State  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40
   5.  Interworking with non-OISM EVPN-PEs . . . . . . . . . . . . .  41
     5.1.  IPMG Designated Forwarder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  43
     5.2.  Ingress Replication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  44
       5.2.1.  Ingress PE is non-OISM  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  45
       5.2.2.  Ingress PE is OISM  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  47
     5.3.  P2MP Tunnels  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  48
   6.  Traffic to/from Outside the EVPN Tenant Domain  . . . . . . .  48
     6.1.  Layer 3 Interworking via EVPN OISM PEs  . . . . . . . . .  48
       6.1.1.  General Principles  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  48
       6.1.2.  Interworking with MVPN  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  51
         6.1.2.1.  MVPN Sources with EVPN Receivers  . . . . . . . .  53
           6.1.2.1.1.  Identifying MVPN Sources  . . . . . . . . . .  53
           6.1.2.1.2.  Joining a Flow from an MVPN Source  . . . . .  54
         6.1.2.2.  EVPN Sources with MVPN Receivers  . . . . . . . .  56
           6.1.2.2.1.  General procedures  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  56
           6.1.2.2.2.  Any-Source Multicast (ASM) Groups . . . . . .  57
           6.1.2.2.3.  Source on Multihomed Segment  . . . . . . . .  58
         6.1.2.3.  Obtaining Optimal Routing of Traffic Between MVPN
                   and EVPN  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  59
         6.1.2.4.  Selecting the MEG SBD-DR  . . . . . . . . . . . .  59
       6.1.3.  Interworking with 'Global Table Multicast'  . . . . .  60
       6.1.4.  Interworking with PIM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  60
         6.1.4.1.  Source Inside EVPN Domain . . . . . . . . . . . .  61
         6.1.4.2.  Source Outside EVPN Domain  . . . . . . . . . . .  62
     6.2.  Interworking with PIM via an External PIM Router  . . . .  63
   7.  Using an EVPN Tenant Domain as an Intermediate (Transit)
       Network for Multicast traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  64
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  66
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  67
   10. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  67
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  67
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  67
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  69
   Appendix A.  Integrated Routing and Bridging  . . . . . . . . . .  71
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  76




Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


1.  Introduction

1.1.  Background

   Ethernet VPN (EVPN) [RFC7432] provides a Layer 2 VPN (L2VPN)
   solution, which allows IP backbone provider to offer ethernet service
   to a set of customers, known as "tenants".

   In this section (as well as in [EVPN-IRB]), we provide some essential
   background information on EVPN.

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

1.1.1.  Segments, Broadcast Domains, and Tenants

   One of the key concepts of EVPN is the Broadcast Domain (BD).  A BD
   is essentially an emulated ethernet.  Each BD belongs to a single
   tenant.  A BD typically consists of multiple ethernet "segments", and
   each segment may be attached to a different EVPN Provider Edge
   (EVPN-PE) router.  EVPN-PE routers are often referred to as "Network
   Virtualization Endpoints" or NVEs.  However, this document will use
   the term "EVPN-PE", or, when the context is clear, just "PE".

   In this document, we use the term "segment" to mean the same as
   "Ethernet Segment" or "ES" in [RFC7432].

   Attached to each segment are "Tenant Systems" (TSes).  A TS may be
   any type of system, physical or virtual, host or router, etc., that
   can attach to an ethernet.

   When two TSes are on the same segment, traffic between them does not
   pass through an EVPN-PE.  When two TSes are on different segments of
   the same BD, traffic between them does pass through an EVPN-PE.

   When two TSes, say TS1 and TS2 are on the same BD, then:

   o  If TS1 knows the MAC address of TS2, TS1 can send unicast ethernet
      frames to TS2.  TS2 will receive the frames unaltered.

   o  If TS1 broadcasts an ethernet frame, TS2 will receive the
      unaltered frame.






Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


   o  If TS1 multicasts an ethernet frame, TS2 will receive the
      unaltered frame, as long as TS2 has been provisioned to receive
      ethernet multicasts.

   When we say that TS2 receives an unaltered frame from TS1, we mean
   that the frame still contains TS1's MAC address, and that no
   alteration of the frame's payload (and consequently, no alteration of
   the payload's IP header) has been made.

   EVPN allows a single segment to be attached to multiple PE routers.
   This is known as "EVPN multi-homing".  Suppose a given segment is
   attached to both PE1 and PE2, and suppose PE1 receives a frame from
   that segment.  It may be necessary for PE1 to send the frame over the
   backbone to PE2.  EVPN has procedures to ensure that such a frame
   cannot be sent by PE2 back to its originating segment.  This is
   particularly important for multicast, because a frame arriving at PE1
   from a given segment will already have been seen by all the systems
   on that segment that need to see it.  If the frame were sent back to
   the originating segment by PE2, receivers on that segment would
   receive the packet twice.  Even worse, the frame might be sent back
   to PE1, which could cause an infinite loop.

1.1.2.  Inter-BD (Inter-Subnet) IP Traffic

   If a given tenant has multiple BDs, the tenant may wish to allow IP
   communication among these BDs.  Such a set of BDs is known as an
   "EVPN Tenant Domain" or just a "Tenant Domain".

   If tenant systems TS1 and TS2 are not in the same BD, then they do
   not receive unaltered ethernet frames from each other.  In order for
   TS1 to send traffic to TS2, TS1 encapsulates an IP datagram inside an
   ethernet frame, and uses ethernet to send these frames to an IP
   router.  The router decapsulates the IP datagram, does the IP
   processing, and re-encapsulates the datagram for ethernet.  The MAC
   source address field now has the MAC address of the router, not of
   TS1.  The TTL field of the IP datagram should be decremented by
   exactly 1, even if the frame needs to be sent from one PE to another.
   The structure of the provider's IP backbone is thus hidden from the
   tenants.

   EVPN accommodates the need for inter-BD communication within a Tenant
   Domain by providing an integrated L2/L3 service for unicast IP
   traffic.  EVPN's Integrated Routing and Bridging (IRB) functionality
   is specified in [EVPN-IRB].  Each BD in a Tenant Domain is assumed to
   be a single IP subnet, and each IP subnet within a a given Tenant
   Domain is assumed to be a single BD.  EVPN's IRB functionality allows
   IP traffic to travel from one BD to another, and ensures that proper
   IP processing (e.g., TTL decrement) is done.



Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


   A brief overview of IRB, including the notion of an "IRB interface",
   can be found in Appendix A.  As explained there, an IRB interface is
   a sort of virtual interface connecting an L3 routing instance to a
   BD.  A BD may have multiple attachment circuits (ACs) to a given PE,
   where each AC connects to a different ethernet segment of the BD.
   However, these ACs are not visible to the L3 routing function; from
   the perspective of an L3 routing instance, a PE has just one
   interface to each BD, viz., the IRB interface for that BD.

   The "L3 routing instance" depicted in Appendix A is associated with a
   single Tenant Domain, and may be thought of as an IP-VRF for that
   Tenant Domain.

1.1.3.  EVPN and IP Multicast

   [EVPN-IRB] and [EVPN_IP_Prefix] cover inter-subnet (inter-BD) IP
   unicast forwarding, but they do not cover inter-subnet IP multicast
   forwarding.

   [RFC7432] covers intra-subnet (intra-BD) ethernet multicast.  The
   intra-subnet ethernet multicast procedures of [RFC7432] are used for
   ethernet Broadcast traffic, for ethernet unicast traffic whose MAC
   Destination Address field contains an Unknown address, and for
   ethernet traffic whose MAC Destination Address field contains an
   ethernet Multicast MAC address.  These three classes of traffic are
   known collectively as "BUM traffic" (Broadcast/Unknown-Unicast/
   Multicast), and the procedures for handling BUM traffic are known as
   "BUM procedures".

   [IGMP-Proxy] extends the intra-subnet ethernet multicast procedures
   by adding procedures that are specific to, and optimized for, the use
   of IP multicast within a subnet.  However,that document does not
   cover inter-subnet IP multicast.

   The purpose of this document is to specify procedures for EVPN that
   provide optimized IP multicast functionality within an EVPN tenant
   domain.  This document also specifies procedures that allow IP
   multicast packets to be sourced from or destined to systems outside
   the Tenant Domain.  We refer to the entire set of these procedures as
   "OISM" (Optimized Inter-Subnet Multicast) procedures.

   In order to support the OISM procedures specified in this document,
   an EVPN-PE MUST also support [EVPN-IRB] and [IGMP-Proxy].  (However,
   certain of the procedures in [IGMP-Proxy] are modified when OISM is
   supported.)






Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


1.1.4.  BDs, MAC-VRFS, and EVPN Service Models

   [RFC7432] defines the notion of "MAC-VRF".  A MAC-VRF contains one or
   more "Bridge Tables" (see section 3 of [RFC7432] for a discussion of
   this terminology), each of which represents a single Broadcast
   Domain.

   In the IRB model (outlined in Appendix A) a L3 routing instance has
   one IRB interface per BD, NOT one per MAC-VRF.  This document does
   not distinguish between a "Broadcast Domain" and a "Bridge Table",
   and will use the terms interchangeably (or will use the acronym "BD"
   to refer to either).  The way the BDs are grouped into MAC-VRFs is
   not relevant to the procedures specified in this document.

   Section 6 of [RFC7432] also defines several different EVPN service
   models:

   o  In the "vlan-based service", each MAC-VRF contains one "bridge
      table", where the bridge table corresponds to a particular Virtual
      LAN (VLAN).  (See section 3 of [RFC7432] for a discussion of this
      terminology.)  Thus each VLAN is treated as a BD.

   o  In the "vlan bundle service", each MAC-VRF contains one bridge
      table, where the bridge table corresponds to a set of VLANs.  Thus
      a set of VLANs are treated as constituting a single BD.

   o  In the "vlan-aware bundle service", each MAC-VRF may contain
      multiple bridge tables, where each bridge table corresponds to one
      BD.  If a MAC-VRF contains several bridge tables, then it
      corresponds to several BDs.

   The procedures of this document are intended to work for all these
   service models.

1.2.  Need for EVPN-aware Multicast Procedures

   Inter-subnet IP multicast among a set of BDs can be achieved, in a
   non-optimal manner, without any specific EVPN procedures.  For
   instance, if a particular tenant has n BDs among which he wants to
   send IP multicast traffic, he can simply attach a conventional
   multicast router to all n BDs.  Or more generally, as long as each BD
   has at least one IP multicast router, and the IP multicast routers
   communicate multicast control information with each other,
   conventional IP multicast procedures will work normally, and no
   special EVPN functionality is needed.

   However, that technique does not provide optimal routing for
   multicast.  In conventional multicast routing, for a given multicast



Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


   flow, there is only one multicast router on each BD that is permitted
   to send traffic of that flow to the BD.  If that BD has receivers for
   a given flow, but the source of the flow is not on that BD, then the
   flow must pass through that multicast router.  This leads to the
   "hair-pinning" problem described (for unicast) in Appendix A.

   For example, consider an (S,G) flow that is sourced by a TS S and
   needs to be received by TSes R1 and R2.  Suppose S is on a segment of
   BD1, R1 is on a segment of BD2, but both are attached to PE1.
   Suppose also that the tenant has a multicast router, attached to a
   segment of BD1 and to a segment of BD2.  However, the segments to
   which that router is attached are both attached to PE2.  Then the
   flow from S to R would have to follow the path:
   S-->PE1-->PE2-->Tenant Multicast Router-->PE2-->PE1-->R1.  Obviously,
   the path S-->PE1-->R would be preferred.

   Now suppose that there is a second receiver, R2.  R2 is attached to a
   third BD, BD3.  However, it is attached to a segment of BD3 that is
   attached to PE1.  And suppose also that the Tenant Multicast Router
   is attached to a segment of BD3 that attaches to PE2.  In this case,
   the Tenant Multicast Router will make two copies of the packet, one
   for BD2 and one for BD3.  PE2 will send both copies back to PE1.  Not
   only is the routing sub-optimal, but PE2 sends multiple copies of the
   same packet to PE1.  This is a further sub-optimality.

   This is only an example; many more examples of sub-optimal multicast
   routing can easily be given.  To eliminate sub-optimal routing and
   extra copies, it is necessary to have a multicast solution that is
   EVPN-aware, and that can use its knowledge of the internal structure
   of a Tenant Domain to ensure that multicast traffic gets routed
   optimally.  The procedures of this document allow us to avoid all
   such sub-optimalities when routing inter-subnet multicasts within a
   Tenant Domain.

1.3.  Additional Requirements That Must be Met by the Solution

   In addition to providing optimal routing of multicast flows within a
   Tenant Domain, the EVPN-aware multicast solution is intended to
   satisfy the following requirements:

   o  The solution must integrate well with the procedures specified in
      [IGMP-Proxy].  That is, an integrated set of procedures must
      handle both intra-subnet multicast and inter-subnet multicast.

   o  With regard to intra-subnet multicast, the solution MUST maintain
      the integrity of multicast ethernet service.  This means:





Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


      *  If a source and a receiver are on the same subnet, the MAC
         source address (SA) of the multicast frame sent by the source
         will not get rewritten.

      *  If a source and a receiver are on the same subnet, no IP
         processing of the ethernet payload is done.  The IP TTL is not
         decremented, the header checksum is not changed, no
         fragmentation is done, etc.

   o  On the other hand, if a source and a receiver are on different
      subnets, the frame received by the receiver will not have the MAC
      Source address of the source, as the frame will appear to have
      come from a multicast router.  Also, proper processing of the IP
      header is done, e.g., TTL decrement by 1, header checksum
      modification, possibly fragmentation, etc.

   o  If a Tenant Domain contains several BDs, it MUST be possible for a
      multicast flow (even when the multicast group address is an "any
      source multicast" (ASM) address), to have sources in one of those
      BDs and receivers in one or more of the other BDs, without
      requiring the presence of any system performing PIM Rendezvous
      Point (RP) functions ([RFC7761]).  Multicast throughout a Tenant
      Domain must not require the tenant systems to be aware of any
      underlying multicast infrastructure.

   o  Sometimes a MAC address used by one TS on a particular BD is also
      used by another TS on a different BD.  Inter-subnet routing of
      multicast traffic MUST NOT make any assumptions about the
      uniqueness of a MAC address across several BDs.

   o  If two EVPN-PEs attached to the same Tenant Domain both support
      the OISM procedures, each may receive inter-subnet multicasts from
      the other, even if the egress PE is not attached to any segment of
      the BD from which the multicast packets are being sourced.  It
      MUST NOT be necessary to provision the egress PE with knowledge of
      the ingress BD.

   o  There must be a procedure that that allows EVPN-PE routers
      supporting OISM procedures to send/receive multicast traffic to/
      from EVPN-PE routers that support only [RFC7432], but that do not
      support the OISM procedures or even the procedures of [EVPN-IRB].
      However, when interworking with such routers (which we call
      "non-OISM PE routers"), optimal routing may not be achievable.

   o  It MUST be possible to support scenarios in which multicast flows
      with sources inside a Tenant Domain have "external" receivers,
      i.e., receivers that are outside the domain.  It must also be
      possible to support scenarios where multicast flows with external



Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


      sources (sources outside the Tenant Domain) have receivers inside
      the domain.

      This presupposes that unicast routes to multicast sources outside
      the domain can be distributed to EVPN-PEs attached to the domain,
      and that unicast routes to multicast sources within the domain can
      be distributed outside the domain.

      Of particular importance are the scenario in which the external
      sources and/or receivers are reachable via L3VPN/MVPN, and the
      scenario in which external sources and/or receivers are reachable
      via IP/PIM.

      The solution for external interworking MUST allow for deployment
      scenarios in which EVPN does not need to export a host route for
      every multicast source.

   o  The solution for external interworking must not presuppose that
      the same tunneling technology is used within both the EVPN domain
      and the external domain.  For example, MVPN interworking must be
      possible when MVPN is using MPLS P2MP tunneling, and EVPN is using
      Ingress Replication or VXLAN tunneling.

   o  The solution must not be overly dependent on the details of a
      small set of use cases, but must be adaptable to new use cases as
      they arise.  (That is, the solution must be robust.)

1.4.  Terminology

   In this document we make frequent use of the following terminology:

   o  OISM: Optimized Inter-Subnet Multicast.  EVPN-PEs that follow the
      procedures of this document will be known as "OISM" PEs.  EVPN-PEs
      that do not follow the procedures of this document will be known
      as "non-OISM" PEs.

   o  IP Multicast Packet: An IP packet whose IP Destination Address
      field is a multicast address that is not a link-local address.
      (Link-local addresses are IPv4 addresses in the 224/8 range and
      IPv6 address in the FF02/16 range.)

   o  IP Multicast Frame: An ethernet frame whose payload is an IP
      multicast packet (as defined above).

   o  (S,G) Multicast Packet: An IP multicast packet whose IP Source
      Address field contains S and whose IP Destination Address field
      contains G.




Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


   o  (S,G) Multicast Frame: An IP multicast frame whose payload
      contains S in its IP Source Address field and G in its IP
      Destination Address field.

   o  Broadcast Domain (BD): an emulated ethernet, such that two systems
      on the same BD will receive each other's link-local broadcasts.

      Note that EVPN supports service models in which a single EVPN
      Instance (EVI) contains only one BD, and service models in which a
      single EVI contains multiple BDs.  Both types of service model are
      supported by this draft.  In all models, a given BD belongs to
      only one EVI.

   o  Designated Forwarder (DF).  As defined in [RFC7432], an ethernet
      segment may be multi-homed (attached to more than one PE).  An
      ethernet segment may also contain multiple BDs, of one or more
      EVIs.  For each such EVI, one of the PEs attached to the segment
      becomes that EVI's DF for that segment.  Since a BD may belong to
      only one EVI, we can speak unambiguously of the BD's DF for a
      given segment.

      When the text makes it clear that we are speaking in the context
      of a given BD, we will frequently use the term "a segment's DF" to
      mean the given BD's DF for that segment.

   o  AC: Attachment Circuit.  An AC connects the bridging function of
      an EVPN-PE to an ethernet segment of a particular BD.  ACs are not
      visible at the router (L3) layer.

      If a given ethernet segment, attached to a given PE, contains n
      BDs, we will say that the PE has n ACs to that segment.

   o  L3 Gateway: An L3 Gateway is a PE that connects an EVPN tenant
      domain to an external multicast domain by performing both the OISM
      procedures and the Layer 3 multicast procedures of the external
      domain.

   o  PEG (PIM/EVPN Gateway): A L3 Gateway that connects an EVPN Tenant
      Domain to an external multicast domain whose Layer 3 multicast
      procedures are those of PIM ([RFC7761]).

   o  MEG (MVPN/EVPN Gateway): A L3 Gateway that connects an EVPN Tenant
      Domain to an external multicast domain whose Layer 3 multicast
      procedures are those of MVPN ([RFC6513], [RFC6514]).

   o  IPMG (IP Multicast Gateway): A PE that is used for interworking
      OISM EVPN-PEs with non-OISM EVPN-PEs.




Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


   o  DR (Designated Router): A PE that has special responsibilities for
      handling multicast on a given BD.

   o  FHR (First Hop Router): The FHR is a PIM router ([RFC7761]) with
      special responsibilities.  It is the first multicast router to see
      (S,G) packets from source S, and if G is an "Any Source Multicast
      (ASM)" group, the FHR is responsible for sending PIM Register
      messages to the PIM Rendezvous Point for group G.

   o  LHR (Last Hop Router): The LHR is a PIM router ([RFC7761]) with
      special responsibilities.  Generally it is attached to a LAN, and
      it determines whether there are any hosts on the LAN that need to
      receive a given multicast flow.  If so, it creates and sends the
      PIM Join messages that are necessary to draw the flow.

   o  EC (Extended Community).  A BGP Extended Communities attribute
      ([RFC4360], [RFC7153]) is a BGP path attribute that consists of
      one or more extended communities.

   o  RT (Route Target): A Route Target is a particular kind of BGP
      Extended Community.  A BGP Extended Community consists of a type
      field, a sub-type field, and a value field.  Certain type/sub-type
      combinations indicate that a particular Extended Community is an
      RT.  RT1 and RT2 are considered to be the same RT if and only if
      they have the same type, same sub-type, and same value fields.

   o  Use of the "C-" prefix.  In many documents on VPN multicast, the
      prefix "C-" appears before any address or wildcard that refers to
      an address or addresses in a tenant's address space, rather than
      to an address of addresses in the address space of the backbone
      network.  This document omits the "C-" prefix in many cases where
      it is clear from the context that the reference is to the tenant's
      address space.

   This document also assumes familiarity with the terminology of
   [RFC4364], [RFC6514], [RFC7432], [RFC7761], [IGMP-Proxy],
   [EVPN_IP_Prefix] and [EVPN-BUM].

1.5.  Model of Operation: Overview

1.5.1.  Control Plane

   In this section, and in the remainder of this document, we assume the
   reader is familiar with the procedures of IGMP/MLD (see [RFC2236] and
   [RFC2710]), by which hosts announce their interest in receiving
   particular multicast flows.





Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


   Consider a Tenant Domain consisting of a set of k BDs: BD1, ..., BDk.
   To support the OISM procedures, each Tenant Domain must also be
   associated with a "Supplementary Broadcast Domain" (SBD).  An SBD is
   treated in the control plane as a real BD, but it does not have any
   ACs.  The SBD has several uses; these will be described later in this
   document (see Section 2.1 and Section 3).

   Each PE that attaches to one or more of the BDs in a given tenant
   domain will be provisioned to recognize that those BDs are part of
   the same Tenant Domain.  Note that a given PE does not need to be
   configured with all the BDs of a given Tenant Domain.  In general, a
   PE will only be attached to a subset of the BDs in a given Tenant
   Domain, and will be configured only with that subset of BDs.
   However, each PE attached to a given Tenant Domain must be configured
   with the SBD for that Tenant Domain.

   Suppose a particular segment of a particular BD is attached to PE1.
   [RFC7432] specifies that PE1 must originate an Inclusive Multicast
   Ethernet Tag (IMET) route for that BD, and that the IMET route must
   be propagated to all other PEs attached to the same BD.  If the given
   segment contains a host that has interest in receiving a particular
   multicast flow, either an (S,G) flow or a (*,G) flow, PE1 will learn
   of that interest by participating in the IGMP/MLD procedures, as
   specified in [IGMP-Proxy].  In this case, we will say that:

   o  PE1 is interested in receiving the flow;

   o  The AC attaching the interested host to PE1 is also said to be
      interested in the flow;

   o  The BD containing an AC that is interested in a particular flow is
      also said to be interested in that flow.

   Once PE1 determines that it has an AC that is interested in receiving
   a particular flow or set of flows, it originates one or more
   Selective Multicast Ethernet Tag (SMET) route to advertise that
   interest.

   Note that each IMET or SMET route is "for" a particular BD.  The
   notion of a route being "for" a particular BD is explained in
   Section 2.2.

   When OISM is being supported, the procedures of [IGMP-Proxy], are
   modified as follows:

   o  The IMET route originated by a particular PE for a particular BD
      is distributed to all other PEs attached to the Tenant Domain




Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


      containing that BD, even to those PEs that are not attached to
      that particular BD.

   o  The SMET routes originated by a particular PE are originated on a
      per-Tenant-Domain basis, rather than on a per-BD basis.  That is,
      the SMET routes are considered to be for the Tenant Domain's SBD,
      rather than for any of its ordinary BDs.  These SMET routes are
      distributed to all the PEs attached to the Tenant Domain.

      In this way, each PE attached to a given Tenant Domain learns,
      from each other PE attached to the same Tenant Domain, the set of
      flows that are of interest to each of those other PEs.

   An OISM PE that is provisioned with several BDs in the same Tenant
   Domain MUST originate an IMET route for each such BD.  To indicate
   its support of [IGMP-Proxy], it SHOULD attach the EVPN Multicast
   Flags Extended Community to each such IMET route, but it MUST attach
   the EC to at least one such IMET route.

   Suppose PE1 is provisioned with both BD1 and BD2, and is provisioned
   to consider them to be part of the same Tenant Domain.  It is
   possible that PE1 will receive from PE2 both an IMET route for BD1
   and an IMET route for BD2.  If either of these IMET routes has the
   EVPN Multicast Flags Extended Community, PE1 MUST assume that PE2 is
   supporting the procedures of [IGMP-Proxy] for ALL BDs in the Tenant
   Domain.

   If a PE supports OISM functionality, it indicates that by setting the
   "OISM-supported" flag in the Multicast Flags Extended Community that
   it attaches to some or all of its IMET routes.  An OISM PE SHOULD
   attach this EC with the OISM-supported flag set to all the IMET
   routes it originates.  However, if PE1 imports IMET routes from PE2,
   and at least one of PE2's IMET routes indicates that PE2 is an OISM
   PE, PE1 MUST assume that PE2 is following OISM procedures.

1.5.2.  Data Plane

   Suppose PE1 has an AC to a segment in BD1, and PE1 receives from that
   AC an (S,G) multicast frame (as defined in Section 1.4).

   There may be other ACs of PE1 on which TSes have indicated an
   interest (via IGMP/MLD) in receiving (S,G) multicast packets.  PE1 is
   responsible for sending the received multicast packet out those ACs.
   There are two cases to consider:

   o  Intra-Subnet Forwarding: In this case, an attachment AC with
      interest in (S,G) is connected to a segment that is part of the
      source BD, BD1.  If the segment is not multi-homed, or if PE1 is



Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


      the Designated Forwarder (DF) (see [RFC7432]) for that segment,
      PE1 sends the multicast frame on that AC without changing the MAC
      SA.  The IP header is not modified at all; in particular, the TTL
      is not decremented.

   o  Inter-Subnet Forwarding: An AC with interest in (S,G) is connected
      to a segment of BD2, where BD2 is different than BD1.  If PE1 is
      the DF for that segment (or if the segment is not multi-homed),
      PE1 decapsulates the IP multicast packet, performs any necessary
      IP processing (including TTL decrement), then re-encapsulates the
      packet appropriately for BD2.  PE1 then sends the packet on the
      AC.  Note that after re-encapsulation, the MAC SA will be PE1's
      MAC address on BD2.  The IP TTL will have been decremented by 1.

   In addition, there may be other PEs that are interested in (S,G)
   traffic.  Suppose PE2 is such a PE.  Then PE1 tunnels a copy of the
   IP multicast frame (with its original MAC SA, and with no alteration
   of the payload's IP header) to PE2.  The tunnel encapsulation
   contains information that PE2 can use to associate the frame with an
   "apparent source BD".  If the actual source BD of the frame is BD1,
   then:

   o  If PE2 is attached to BD1, the tunnel encapsulation used to send
      the frame to PE2 will cause PE2 to identify BD1 as the apparent
      source BD.

   o  If PE2 is not attached to BD1, the tunnel encapsulation used to
      send the frame to PE2 will cause PE2 to identify the SBD as the
      apparent source BD.

   Note that the tunnel encapsulation used for a particular BD will have
   been advertised in an IMET route or S-PMSI route ([EVPN-BUM]) for
   that BD.  That route carries a PMSI Tunnel attribute, which specifies
   how packets originating from that BD are encapsulated.  This
   information enables the PE receiving a tunneled packet to identify
   the apparent source BD as stated above.  See Section 3.2 for more
   details.

   When PE2 receives the tunneled frame, it will forward it on any of
   its ACs that have interest in (S,G).

   If PE2 determines from the tunnel encapsulation that the apparent
   source BD is BD1, then

   o  For those ACs that connect PE2 to BD1, the intra-subnet forwarding
      procedure described above is used, except that it is now PE2, not
      PE1, carrying out that procedure.  Unmodified EVPN procedures from




Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


      [RFC7432] are used to ensure that a packet originating from a
      multi-homed segment is never sent back to that segment.

   o  For those ACs that do not connect to BD1, the inter-subnet
      forwarding procedure described above is used, except that it is
      now PE2, not PE1, carrying out that procedure.

   If the tunnel encapsulation identifies the apparent source BD as the
   SBD, PE2 applies the inter-subnet forwarding procedures described
   above to all of its ACs that have interest in the flow.

   These procedures ensure that an IP multicast frame travels from its
   ingress PE to all egress PEs that are interested in receiving it.
   While in transit, the frame retains its original MAC SA, and the
   payload of the frame retains its original IP header.  Note that in
   all cases, when an IP multicast packet is sent from one BD to
   another, these procedures cause its TTL to be decremented by 1.

   So far we have assumed that an IP multicast packet arrives at its
   ingress PE over an AC that belongs to one of the BDs in a given
   Tenant Domain.  However, it is possible for a packet to arrive at its
   ingress PE in other ways.  Since an EVPN-PE supporting IRB has an
   IP-VRF, it is possible that the IP-VRF will have a "VRF interface"
   that is not an IRB interface.  For example, there might be a VRF
   interface that is actually a physical link to an external ethernet
   switch, or to a directly attached host, or to a router.  When an
   EVPN-PE, say PE1, receives a packet through such means, we will say
   that the packet has an "external" source (i.e., a source "outside the
   Tenant Domain").  There are also other scenarios in which a multicast
   packet might have an external source, e.g., it might arrive over an
   MVPN tunnel from an L3VPN PE.  In such cases, we will still refer to
   PE1 as the "ingress EVPN-PE".

   When an EVPN-PE, say PE1, receives an externally sourced multicast
   packet, and there are receivers for that packet inside the Tenant
   Domain, it does the following:

   o  Suppose PE1 has an AC in BD1 that has interest in (S,G).  Then PE1
      encapsulates the packet for BD1, filling in the MAC SA field with
      PE1's own MAC address on BD1.  It sends the resulting frame on the
      AC.

   o  Suppose some other EVPN-PE, say PE2, has interest in (S,G).  PE1
      encapsulates the packet for ethernet, filling in the MAC SA field
      with PE1's own MAC address on the SBD.  PE1 then tunnels the
      packet to PE2.  The tunnel encapsulation will identify the
      apparent source BD as the SBD.  Since the apparent source BD is




Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


      the SBD, PE2 will know to treat the frame as an inter-subnet
      multicast.

   When ingress replication is used to transmit IP multicast frames from
   an ingress EVPN-PE to a set of egress PEs, then of course the ingress
   PE has to send multiple copies of the frame.  Each copy is the
   original ethernet frame; decapsulation and IP processing take place
   only at the egress PE.

   If a Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) tree or BIER ([EVPN-BIER]) is used to
   transmit an IP multicast frame from an ingress PE to a set of egress
   PEs, then the ingress PE only has to send one copy of the frame to
   each of its next hops.  Again, each egress PE receives the original
   frame and does any necessary IP processing.

2.  Detailed Model of Operation

   The model described in Section 1.5.2 can be expressed more precisely
   using the notion of "IRB interface" (see Appendix A).  For a given
   Tenant Domain:

   o  A given PE has one IRB for each BD to which it is attached.  This
      IRB interface connects L3 routing to that BD.  When IP multicast
      packets are sent or received on the IRB interfaces, the semantics
      of the interface is modified from the semantics described in
      Appendix A.  See Section 2.3 for the details of the modification.

   o  Each PE also has an IRB interface that connects L3 routing to the
      SBD.  The semantics of this interface is different than the
      semantics of the IRB interface to the real BDs.  See Section 2.3.

   In this section we assume that PIM is not enabled on the IRB
   interfaces.  In general, it is not necessary to enable PIM on the IRB
   interfaces unless there are PIM routers on one of the Tenant Domain's
   BDs, or unless there is some other scenario requiring a Tenant
   Domain's L3 routing instance to become a PIM adjacency of some other
   system.  These cases will be discussed in Section 7.

2.1.  Supplementary Broadcast Domain

   Suppose a given Tenant Domain contains three BDs (BD1, BD2, BD3) and
   two PEs (PE1, PE2).  PE1 attaches to BD1 and BD2, while PE2 attaches
   to BD2 and BD3.

   To carry out the procedures described above, all the PEs attached to
   the Tenant Domain must be provisioned with the SBD for that tenant
   domain.  A Route Target (RT) must be associated with the SBD, and




Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


   provisioned on each of those PEs.  We will refer to that RT as the
   "SBD-RT".

   A Tenant Domain is also configured with an IP-VRF ([EVPN-IRB]), and
   the IP-VRF is associated with an RT.  This RT MAY be the same as the
   SBD-RT.

   Suppose an (S,G) multicast frame originating on BD1 has a receiver on
   BD3.  PE1 will transmit the packet to PE2 as a frame, and the
   encapsulation will identify the frame's source BD as BD1.  Since PE2
   is not provisioned with BD1, it will treat the packet as if its
   source BD were the SBD.  That is, a packet can be transmitted from
   BD1 to BD3 even though its ingress PE is not configured for BD3, and/
   or its egress PE is not configured for BD1.

   EVPN supports service models in which a given EVPN Instance (EVI) can
   contain only one BD.  It also supports service models in which a
   given EVI can contain multiple BDs.  No matter which service model is
   being used for a particular tenant, it is highly RECOMMENDED that an
   EVI containing only the SBD be provisioned for that tenant.

   If, for some reason, it is not feasible to provision an EVI that
   contains only the SBD, it is possible to put the SBD in an EVI that
   contains other BDs.  However, in that case, the SBD-RT MUST be
   different than the RT associated with any other BD.  Otherwise the
   procedures of this document (as detailed in Sections 2.2 and 3.1)
   will not produce correct results.

2.2.  Detecting When a Route is About/For/From a Particular BD

   In this document, we frequently say that a particular multicast route
   is "about" a particular BD, or is "from" a particular BD, or is "for"
   a particular BD or is "related to" a particular BD or "is associated
   with" a particular BD.  These terms are used interchangeably.
   Subsequent sections of this document explain when various routes must
   be originated for particular BDs.  In this section, we explain how
   the PE originating a route marks the route to indicate which BD it is
   about.  We also explain how a PE receiving the route determines which
   BD the route is about.

   In EVPN, each BD is assigned a Route Target (RT).  An RT is a BGP
   extended community that can be attached to the BGP routes used by the
   EVPN control plane.  In some EVPN service models, each BD is assigned
   a unique RT.  In other service models, a set of BDs (all in the same
   EVI) may be assigned the same RT.  The RT that is assigned to the SBD
   is called the "SBD-RT".





Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


   In those service models that allow a set of BDs to share a single RT,
   each BD is assigned a non-zero Tag ID.  The Tag ID appears in the
   Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) of many of the BGP
   routes that are used by the EVPN control plane.

   A given route may be about the SBD, or about an "ordinary BD" (a BD
   that is not the SBD).  An RT that has been assigned to an ordinary BD
   will be known as an "ordinary BD-RT".

   When constructing an IMET, SMET, S-PMSI ([EVPN-BUM]), or Leaf
   ([EVPN-BUM]) route that is about a given BD, the following rules
   apply:

   o  If the route is about an ordinary BD, say BD1, then

      *  the route MUST carry the ordinary BD-RT associated with BD1,
         and

      *  the route MUST NOT carry any RT that is associated with an
         ordinary BD other than BD1.

   o  If the route is about the SBD, the route MUST carry the SBD-RT,
      and MUST NOT carry any RT that is associated with any other BD.

   o  As detailed in subsequent sections, under certain circumstances a
      route that is about BD1 may carry both the RT of BD1 and also the
      SBD-RT.

   When receiving an IMET, SMET, S-PMSI or Leaf route, it is necessary
   for the receiving PE to determine the BD to which the route belongs.
   This is done by examining the RTs carried by the route, as well as
   the Tag ID field of the route's NLRI.  There are several cases to
   consider.  Some of these cases are error cases that arise when the
   route has not been properly constructed.

   When one of the error cases is detected, the route MUST be regarded
   as a malformed route, and the "treat-as-withdraw" procedure of
   [RFC7606] MUST be applied.  Note though that these error cases are
   only detectable by EVPN procedures at the receiving PE; BGP
   procedures at intermediate nodes will generally not detect the
   existence of such error cases, and in general SHOULD NOT attempt to
   do so.

   Case 1:  The receiving PE recognizes more than one of the route's RTs
            as being an SBD-RT (i.e., the route carries SBD-RTs of more
            than one Tenant Domain).





Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 19]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


            This is an error case; the route has not been properly
            constructed.

   Case 2:  The receiving PE recognizes one of the route's RTs as being
            associated with an ordinary BD, and recognizes one of the
            route's other RTs as being associated with a different
            ordinary BD.

            This is an error case; the route has not been properly
            constructed.

   Case 3:  The receiving PE recognizes one of the route's RTs as being
            associated with an ordinary BD in a particular Tenant
            Domain, and recognizes another of the route's RTs as being
            associated with the SBD of a different Tenant Domain.

            This is an error case; the route has not been properly
            constructed.

   Case 4:  The receiving PE does not recognize any of the route's RTs
            as being associated with an ordinary BD in any of its tenant
            domains, but does recognize one of the RTs as the SBD-RT of
            one of its Tenant Domains.

            In this case, receiving PE associates the route with the SBD
            of that Tenant Domain.  This association is made even if the
            Tag ID field of the route's NLRI is not the Tag ID of the
            SBD.

            This is a normal use case where either (a) the route is for
            a BD to which the receiving PE is not attached, or (b) the
            route is for the SBD.  In either case, the receiving PE
            associates the route with the SBD.

   Case 5:  The receiving PE recognizes exactly one of the RTs as an
            ordinary BD-RT that is associated with one of the PE's EVIs,
            say EVI-1.  The receiving PE also recognizes one of the RTs
            as being the SBD-RT of the Tenant Domain containing EVI-1.

            In this case, the route is associated with the BD in EVI-1
            that is identified (in the context of EVI-1) by the Tag ID
            field of the route's NLRI.  (If EVI-1 contains only a single
            BD, the Tag ID is likely to be zero.)

            This is the case where the route is for a BD to which the
            receiving PE is attached, but the route also carries the
            SBD-RT.  In this case, the receiving PE associates the route
            with the ordinary BD, not with the SBD.



Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 20]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


   N.B.: According to the above rules, the mapping from BD to RT is a
   many-to-one or one-to-one mapping.  A route that an EVPN-PE
   originates for a particular BD carries that BD's RT, and an EVPN-PE
   that receives the route associates it with a BD as described above.
   However, RTs are not used only to help identify the BD to which a
   route belongs; they may also used by BGP to determine the path along
   which the route is distributed, and to determine which PEs receive
   the route.  There may be cases where it is desirable to originate a
   route about a particular BD, but have that route distributed to only
   some of the EVPN-PEs attached to that BD.  Or one might want the
   route distributed to some intermediate set of systems, where it might
   be modified or replaced before being propagated further.  Such
   situations are outside the scope of this document.

   Additionally, there may be situations where it is desirable to
   exchange routes among two or more different Tenant Domains ("EVPN
   Extranet").  Such situations are outside the scope of this document.

2.3.  Use of IRB Interfaces at Ingress PE

   When an (S,G) multicast frame is received from an AC belonging to a
   particular BD, say BD1:

   1.  The frame is sent unchanged to other EVPN-PEs that are interested
       in (S,G) traffic.  The encapsulation used to send the frame to
       the other EVPN-PEs depends on the tunnel type being used for
       multicast transmission.  (For our purposes, we consider Ingress
       Replication (IR), Assisted Replication (AR) and BIER to be
       "tunnel types", even though IR, AR and BIER do not actually use
       P2MP tunnels.)  At the egress PE, the apparent source BD of the
       frame can be inferred from the tunnel encapsulation.  If the
       egress PE is not attached to the actual source BD, it will infer
       that the apparent source BD is the SBD.

       Note that the the inter-PE transmission of a multicast frame
       among EVPN-PEs of the same Tenant Domain does NOT involve the IRB
       interfaces, as long as the multicast frame was received over an
       AC attached to one of the Tenant Domain's BDs.

   2.  The frame is also sent up the IRB interface that attaches BD1 to
       the Tenant Domain's L3 routing instance in this PE.  That is, the
       L3 routing instance, behaving as if it were a multicast router,
       receives the IP multicast frames that arrive at the PE from its
       local ACs.  The L3 routing instance decapsulates the frame's
       payload to extract the IP multicast packet, decrements the IP
       TTL, adjusts the header checksum, and does any other necessary IP
       processing (e.g., fragmentation).




Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 21]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


   3.  The L3 routing instance keeps track of which BDs have local
       receivers for (S,G) traffic.  (A "local receiver" is a TS,
       reachable via a local AC, that has expressed interest in (S,G)
       traffic.)  If the L3 routing instance has an IRB interface to
       BD2, and it knows that BD2 has a LOCAL receiver interested in
       (S,G) traffic, it encapsulates the packet in an ethernet header
       for BD2, putting its own MAC address in the MAC SA field.  Then
       it sends the packet down the IRB interface to BD2.

   If a packet is sent from the L3 routing instance to a particular BD
   via the IRB interface (step 3 in the above list), and if the BD in
   question is NOT the SBD, the packet is sent ONLY to LOCAL ACs of that
   BD.  If the packet needs to go to other PEs, it has already been sent
   to them in step 1.  Note that this is a change in the IRB interface
   semantics from what is described in [EVPN-IRB] and Figure 2.

   If a given locally attached segment is multi-homed, existing EVPN
   procedures ensure that a packet is not sent by a given PE to that
   segment unless the PE is the DF for that segment.  Those procedures
   also ensure that a packet is never sent by a PE to its segment of
   origin.  Thus EVPN segment multi-homing is fully supported; duplicate
   delivery to a segment or looping on a segment are thereby prevented,
   without the need for any new procedures to be defined in this
   document.

   What if an IP multicast packet is received from outside the tenant
   domain?  For instance, perhaps PE1's IP-VRF for a particular tenant
   domain also has a physical interface leading to an external switch,
   host, or router, and PE1 receives an IP multicast packet or frame on
   that interface.  Or perhaps the packet is from an L3VPN, or a
   different EVPN Tenant Domain.

   Such a packet is first processed by the L3 routing instance, which
   decrements TTL and does any other necessary IP processing.  Then the
   packet is sent into the Tenant Domain by sending it down the IRB
   interface to the SBD of that Tenant Domain.  This requires
   encapsulating the packet in an ethernet header.  The MAC SA field
   will contain the PE's own MAC on the SBD.

   An IP multicast packet sent by the L3 routing instance down the IRB
   interface to the SBD is treated as if it had arrived from a local AC,
   and steps 1-3 are applied.  Note that the semantics of sending a
   packet down the IRB interface to the SBD are thus slightly different
   than the semantics of sending a packet down other IRB interfaces.  IP
   multicast packets sent down the SBD's IRB interface may be
   distributed to other PEs, but IP multicast packets sent down other
   IRB interfaces are distributed only to local ACs.




Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 22]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


   If a PE sends a link-local multicast packet down the SBD IRB
   interface, that packet will be distributed (as an ethernet frame) to
   other PEs of the Tenant Domain, but will not appear on any of the
   actual BDs.

2.4.  Use of IRB Interfaces at an Egress PE

   Suppose an egress EVPN-PE receives an (S,G) multicast frame from the
   frame's ingress EVPN-PE.  As described above, the packet will arrive
   as an ethernet frame over a tunnel from the ingress PE, and the
   tunnel encapsulation will identify the source BD of the ethernet
   frame.

   We define the notion of the frame's "apparent source BD" as follows.
   If the egress PE is attached to the actual source BD, the actual
   source BD is the apparent source BD.  If the egress PE is not
   attached to the actual source BD, the SBD is the apparent source BD.

   The egress PE now takes the following steps:

   1.  If the egress PE has ACs belonging to the apparent source BD of
       the frame, it sends the frame unchanged to any ACs of that BD
       that have interest in (S,G) packets.  The MAC SA of the frame is
       not modified, and the IP header of the frame's payload is not
       modified in any way.

   2.  The frame is also sent to the L3 routing instance by being sent
       up the IRB interface that attaches the L3 routing instance to the
       apparent source BD.  Steps 2 and 3 of Section 2.3 are then
       applied.

2.5.  Announcing Interest in (S,G)

   [IGMP-Proxy] defines procedures used by an egress PE to announce its
   interest in a multicast flow or set of flows.  If an egress PE
   determines it has LOCAL receivers in a particular BD, say BD1, that
   are interested in a particular set of flows, it originates one or
   more SMET routes for BD1.  Each SMET route specifies a particular
   (S,G) or (*,G) flow.  By originating an SMET route for BD1, a PE is
   announcing "I have receivers for (S,G) or (*,G) in BD1".  Such an
   SMET route carries the Route Target (RT) for BD1, ensuring that it
   will be distributed to all PEs that are attached to BD1.

   The OISM procedures for originating SMET routes differ slightly from
   those in [IGMP-Proxy].  In most cases, the SMET routes are considered
   to be for the SBD, rather than for the BD containing local receivers.
   These SMET routes carry the SBD-RT, and do not carry any ordinary BD-




Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 23]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


   RT.  Details on the processing of SMET routes can be found in
   Section 3.3.

   Since the SMET routes carry the SBD-RT, every ingress PE attached to
   a particular Tenant Domain will learn of all other PEs (attached to
   the same Tenant Domain) that have interest in a particular set of
   flows.  Note that a PE that receives a given SMET route does not
   necessarily have any BDs (other than the SBD) in common with the PE
   that originates that SMET route.

   If all the sources and receivers for a given (*,G) are in the Tenant
   Domain, inter-subnet "Any Source Multicast" traffic will be properly
   routed without requiring any Rendezvous Points, shared trees, or
   other complex aspects of multicast routing infrastructure.  Suppose,
   for example, that:

   o  PE1 has a local receiver, on BD1, for (*,G)

   o  PE2 has a local source, on BD2, for (*,G).

   PE1 will originate an SMET(*,G) route for the SBD, and PE2 will
   receive that route, even if PE2 is not attached to BD1.  PE2 will
   thus know to forward (S,G) traffic to PE1.  PE1 does not need to do
   any "source discovery".  (This does assume that source S does not
   send the same (S,G) datagram on two different BDs, and that the
   Tenant Domain does not contain two or more sources with the same IP
   address S.  The use of multicast sources that have IP "anycast"
   addresses is outside the scope of this document.)

   If some PE attached to the Tenant Domain does not support [IGMP-
   Proxy], it will be assumed to be interested in all flows.  Whether a
   particular remote PE supports [IGMP-Proxy] is determined by the
   presence of the Multicast Flags Extended Community in its IMET route;
   this is specified in [IGMP-Proxy].

2.6.  Tunneling Frames from Ingress PE to Egress PEs

   [RFC7432] specifies the procedures for setting up and using "BUM
   tunnels".  A BUM tunnel is a tunnel used to carry traffic on a
   particular BD if that traffic is (a) broadcast traffic, or (b)
   unicast traffic with an unknown MAC DA, or (c) ethernet multicast
   traffic.

   This document allows the BUM tunnels to be used as the default
   tunnels for transmitting IP multicast frames.  It also allows a
   separate set of tunnels to be used, instead of the BUM tunnels, as
   the default tunnels for carrying IP multicast frames.  Let's call
   these "IP Multicast Tunnels".



Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 24]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


   When the tunneling is done via Ingress Replication or via BIER, this
   difference is of no significance.  However, when P2MP tunnels are
   used, there is a significant advantage to having separate IP
   multicast tunnels.

   Other things being equal, it is desirable for an ingress PE to
   transmit a copy of a given (S,G) multicast frame on only one P2MP
   tunnel.  All egress PEs interested in (S,G) packets then have to join
   that tunnel.  If the source BD and PE for an (S,G) frame are BD1 an
   PE1 respectively, and if PE2 has receivers on BD2 for (S,G), then PE2
   must join the P2MP LSP on which PE1 transmits the (S,G) frame.  PE2
   must join this P2MP LSP even if PE2 is not attached to the source BD
   (BD1).  If PE1 were transmitting the multicast frame on its BD1 BUM
   tunnel, then PE2 would have to join the BD1 BUM tunnel, even though
   PE2 has no BD1 attachment circuits.  This would cause PE2 to pull all
   the BUM traffic from BD1, most of which it would just have to
   discard.  Thus we RECOMMEND that the default IP multicast tunnels be
   distinct from the BUM tunnels.

   Notwithstanding the above, link local IP multicast traffic MUST
   always be carried on the BUM tunnels, and ONLY on the BUM tunnels.
   Link local IP multicast traffic consists of IPv4 traffic with a
   destination address prefix of 224/8 and IPv6 traffic with a
   destination address prefix of FF02/16.  In this document, the terms
   "IP multicast packet" and "IP multicast frame" are defined in
   Section 1.4 so as to exclude the link-local traffic.

   Note that it is also possible to use "selective tunnels" to carry
   particular multicast flows (see Section 3.2).  When an (S,G) frame is
   transmitted on a selective tunnel, it is not transmitted on the BUM
   tunnel or on the default IP Multicast tunnel.

2.7.  Advanced Scenarios

   There are some deployment scenarios that require special procedures:

   1.  Some multicast sources or receivers are attached to PEs that
       support [RFC7432], but do not support this document or
       [EVPN-IRB].  To interoperate with these "non-OISM PEs", it is
       necessary to have one or more gateway PEs that interface the
       tunnels discussed in this document with the BUM tunnels of the
       legacy PEs.  This is discussed in Section 5.

   2.  Sometimes multicast traffic originates from outside the EVPN
       domain, or needs to be sent outside the EVPN domain.  This is
       discussed in Section 6.  An important special case of this,
       integration with MVPN, is discussed in Section 6.1.2.




Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 25]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


   3.  In some scenarios, one or more of the tenant systems is a PIM
       router, and the Tenant Domain is used for as a transit network
       that is part of a larger multicast domain.  This is discussed in
       Section 7.

3.  EVPN-aware Multicast Solution Control Plane

3.1.  Supplementary Broadcast Domain (SBD) and Route Targets

   As discussed in Section 2.1, every Tenant Domain is associated with a
   single Supplementary Broadcast Domain (SBD).  Recall that a Tenant
   Domain is defined to be a set of BDs that can freely send and receive
   IP multicast traffic to/from each other.  If an EVPN-PE has one or
   more ACs in a BD of a particular Tenant Domain, and if the EVPN-PE
   supports the procedures of this document, that EVPN-PE MUST be
   provisioned with the SBD of that Tenant Domain.

   At each EVPN-PE attached to a given Tenant Domain, there is an IRB
   interface leading from the L3 routing instance of that Tenant Domain
   to the SBD.  However, the SBD has no ACs.

   Each SBD is provisioned with a Route Target (RT).  All the EVPN-PEs
   supporting a given SBD are provisioned with that RT as an import RT.
   That RT MUST NOT be the same as the RT associated with any other BD.

   We will use the term "SBD-RT" to denote the RT has has been assigned
   to the SBD.  Routes carrying this RT will be propagated to all
   EVPN-PEs in the same Tenant Domain as the originator.

   Section 2.2 specifies the rules by which an EVPN-PE that receives a
   route determines whether a received route "belongs to" a particular
   ordinary BD or SBD.

   Section 2.2 also specifies additional rules that must be following
   when constructing routes that belong to a particular BD, including
   the SBD.

   The SBD SHOULD be in an EVPN Instance (EVI) of its own.  Even if the
   SBD is not in an EVI of its own, the SBD-RT MUST be different than
   the RT associated with any other BD.  This restriction is necessary
   in order for the rules of Sections 2.2 and 3.1 to work correctly.

   Note that an SBD, just like any other BD, is associated on each
   EVPN-PE with a MAC-VRF.  Per [RFC7432], each MAC-VRF is associated
   with a Route Distinguisher (RD).  When constructing a route that is
   "about" an SBD, an EVPN-PE will place the RD of the associated
   MAC-VRF in the "Route Distinguisher" field of the NLRI.  (If the




Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 26]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


   Tenant Domain has several MAC-VRFs on a given PE, the EVPN-PE has a
   choice of which RD to use.)

   If Assisted Replication (AR, see [EVPN-AR]) is used, each
   AR-REPLICATOR for a given Tenant Domain must be provisioned with the
   SBD of that Tenant Domain, even if the AR-REPLICATOR does not have
   any L3 routing instance.

3.2.  Advertising the Tunnels Used for IP Multicast

   The procedures used for advertising the tunnels that carry IP
   multicast traffic depend upon the type of tunnel being used.  If the
   tunnel type is neither Ingress Replication, Assisted Replication, nor
   BIER, there are procedures for advertising both "inclusive tunnels"
   and "selective tunnels".

   When IR, AR or BIER are used to transmit IP multicast packets across
   the core, there are no P2MP tunnels.  Once an ingress EVPN-PE
   determines the set of egress EVPN-PEs for a given flow, the IMET
   routes contain all the information needed to transport packets of
   that flow to the egress PEs.

   If AR is used, the ingress EVPN-PE is also an AR-LEAF and the IMET
   route coming from the selected AR-REPLICATOR contains the information
   needed.  The AR-REPLICATOR will behave as an ingress EVPN-PE when
   sending a flow to the egress EVPN-PEs.

   If the tunneling technique requires P2MP tunnels to be set up (e.g.,
   RSVP-TE P2MP, mLDP, PIM), some of the tunnels may be selective
   tunnels and some may be inclusive tunnels.

   Selective P2MP tunnels are always advertised by the ingress PE using
   S-PMSI A-D routes ([EVPN-BUM]).

   For inclusive tunnels, there is a choice between using a BD's
   ordinary "BUM tunnel" [RFC7432] as the default inclusive tunnel for
   carrying IP multicast traffic, or using a separate IP multicast
   tunnel as the default inclusive tunnel for carrying IP multicast.  In
   the former case, the inclusive tunnel is advertised in an IMET route.
   In the latter case, the inclusive tunnel is advertised in a (C-*,C-*)
   S-PMSI A-D route ([EVPN-BUM]).  Details may be found in subsequent
   sections.

3.2.1.  Constructing Routes for the SBD

   There are situations in which an EVPN-PE needs to originate IMET,
   SMET, and/or SPMSI routes for the SBD.  Throughout this document, we
   will refer to such routes respectively as "SBD-IMET routes",



Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 27]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


   "SBD-SMET routes", and "SBD-SPMSI routes".  Subsequent sections
   detail the conditions under which these routes need to be originated.

   When an EVPN-PE needs to originate an SBD-IMET, SBD-SMET, or
   SBD-SPMSI route, it constructs the route as follows:

   o  the RD field of the route's NLRI is set to the RD of the MAC-VRF
      that is associated with the SBD;

   o  the SBD-RT is attached to the route;

   o  the "Tag ID" field of the route's NLRI is set to the Tag ID that
      has been assigned to the SBD.  This is most likely 0 if a
      VLAN-based or VLAN-bundle service is being used, but non-zero if a
      VLAN-aware bundle service is being used.

3.2.2.  Ingress Replication

   When Ingress Replication (IR) is used to transport IP multicast
   frames of a given Tenant Domain, each EVPN-PE attached to that Tenant
   Domain MUST originate an SBD-IMET route (see Section 3.2.1).

   The SBD-IMET route MUST carry a PMSI Tunnel attribute (PTA), and the
   MPLS label field of the PTA MUST specify a downstream-assigned MPLS
   label that maps uniquely (in the context of the originating EVPN-PE)
   to the SBD.

   Following the procedures of [RFC7432], an EVPN-PE MUST also originate
   an IMET route for each BD to which it is attached.  Each of these
   IMET routes carries a PTA specifying a downstream-assigned label that
   maps uniquely, in the context of the originating EVPN-PE, to the BD
   in question.  These IMET routes need not carry the SBD-RT.

   When an ingress EVPN-PE needs to use IR to send an IP multicast frame
   from a particular source BD to an egress EVPN-PE, the ingress PE
   determines whether the egress PE has originated an IMET route for
   that BD.  If so, that IMET route contains the MPLS label that the
   egress PE has assigned to the source BD.  The ingress PE uses that
   label when transmitting the packet to the egress PE.  Otherwise, the
   ingress PE uses the label that the egress PE has assigned to the SBD
   (in the SBD-IMET route originated by the egress).

   Note that the set of IMET routes originated by a given egress PE, and
   installed by a given ingress PE, may change over time.  If the egress
   PE withdraws its IMET route for the source BD, the ingress PE MUST
   stop using the label carried in that IMET route, and instead MUST use
   the label carried in the SBD-IMET route from that egress PE.
   Implementors must also take into account that an IMET route from a



Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 28]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


   particular PE for a particular BD may arrive after that PE's SBD-IMET
   route.

3.2.3.  Assisted Replication

   When Assisted Replication is used to transport IP multicast frames of
   a given Tenant Domain, each EVPN-PE (including the AR-REPLICATOR)
   attached to the Tenant Domain MUST originate an SBD-IMET route (see
   Section 3.2.1).

   An AR-REPLICATOR attached to a given Tenant Domain is considered to
   be an EVPN-PE of that Tenant Domain.  It is attached to all the BDs
   in the Tenant Domain, but it has no IRB interfaces.

   As with Ingress Replication, the SBD-IMET route carries a PTA where
   the MPLS label field specifies the downstream-assigned MPLS label
   that identifies the SBD.  However, the AR-REPLICATOR and AR-LEAF
   EVPN-PEs will set the PTA's flags differently, as per [EVPN-AR].

   In addition, each EVPN-PE originates an IMET route for each BD to
   which it is attached.  As in the case of Ingress Replication, these
   routes carry the downstream-assigned MPLS labels that identify the
   BDs and do not carry the SBD-RT.

   When an ingress EVPN-PE, acting as AR-LEAF, needs to send an IP
   multicast frame from a particular source BD to an egress EVPN-PE, the
   ingress PE determines whether there is any AR-REPLICATOR that
   originated an IMET route for that BD.  After the AR-REPLICATOR
   selection (if there are more than one), the AR-LEAF uses the label
   contained in the IMET route of the AR-REPLICATOR when transmitting
   packets to it.  The AR-REPLICATOR receives the packet and, based on
   the procedures specified in [EVPN-AR], transmits the packets to the
   egress EVPN-PEs using the labels contained in the IMET routes
   received from the egress PEs.

   If an ingress AR-LEAF for a given BD has not received any IMET route
   for that BD from an AR-REPLICATOR, the ingress AR-LEAF follows the
   procedures in Section 3.2.2.

3.2.4.  BIER

   When BIER is used to transport multicast packets of a given Tenant
   Domain, and a given EVPN-PE attached to that Tenant Domain is a
   possible ingress EVPN-PE for traffic originating outside that Tenant
   Domain, the given EVPN-PE MUST originate an SBD-IMET route, (see
   Section 3.2.1).





Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 29]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


   In addition, IMET routes that are originated for other BDs in the
   Tenant Domain MUST carry the SBD-RT.

   Each IMET route (including but not limited to the SBD-IMET route)
   MUST carry a PMSI Tunnel attribute (PTA).  The MPLS label field of
   the PTA MUST specify an upstream-assigned MPLS label that maps
   uniquely (in the context of the originating EVPN-PE) to the BD for
   which the route is originated.

   Suppose an ingress EVPN-PE, PE1, needs to use BIER to tunnel an IP
   multicast frame to a set of egress EVPN-PEs.  And suppose the frame's
   source BD is BD1.  The frame is encapsulated as follows:

   o  A four-octet MPLS label stack entry ([RFC3032]) is prepended to
      the frame.  The Label field is set to the upstream-assigned label
      that PE1 has assigned to BD1.

   o  The resulting MPLS packet is then encapsulated in a BIER
      encapsulation ([RFC8296], [EVPN-BIER]).  The BIER BitString is set
      to identify the egress EVPN-PEs.  The BIER "proto" field is set to
      the value for "MPLS packet with upstream-assigned label at top of
      stack".

   Note: It is possible that the packet being tunneled from PE1
   originated outside the Tenant Domain.  In this case, the actual
   source BD (BD1) is considered to be the SBD, and the
   upstream-assigned label it carries will be the label that PE1
   assigned to the SBD, and advertised in its SBD-IMET route.

   Suppose an egress PE, PE2, receives such a BIER packet.  The BFIR-id
   field of the BIER header allows PE2 to determine that the ingress PE
   is PE1.  There are then two cases to consider:

   1.  PE2 has received and installed an IMET route for BD1 from PE1.

       In this case, the BIER packet will be carrying the
       upstream-assigned label that is specified in the PTA of that IMET
       route.  This enables PE2 to determine the "apparent source BD"
       (as defined in Section 2.4).

   2.  PE2 has not received and installed an IMET route for BD1 from
       PE1.

       In this case, PE2 will not recognize the upstream-assigned label
       carried in the BIER packet.  PE2 MUST discard the packet.

   Further details on the use of BIER to support EVPN can be found in
   [EVPN-BIER].



Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 30]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


3.2.5.  Inclusive P2MP Tunnels

3.2.5.1.  Using the BUM Tunnels as IP Multicast Inclusive Tunnels

   The procedures in this section apply only when

   (a)  it is desired to use the BUM tunnels to carry IP multicast
        traffic across the backbone, and

   (b)  the BUM tunnels are P2MP tunnels (i.e., neither IR, AR, nor BIER
        are being used to transport the BUM traffic).

   In this case, an IP multicast frame (whether inter-subnet or
   intra-subnet) will be carried across the backbone in the BUM tunnel
   belonging to its source BD.  Each EVPN-PE attached to a given Tenant
   Domain needs to join the BUM tunnels for every BD in the Tenant
   Domain, even those BDs to which the EVPN-PE is not locally attached.
   This ensures that an IP multicast packet from any source BD can reach
   all PEs attached to the Tenant Domain.

   Note that this will cause all the BUM traffic from a given BD in a
   Tenant Domain to be sent to all PEs that attach to that Tenant
   Domain, even the PEs that don't attach to the given BD.  To avoid
   this, it is RECOMMENDED that the BUM tunnels not be used as IP
   Multicast inclusive tunnels, and that the procedures of
   Section 3.2.5.2 be used instead.

   If a PE is a possible ingress EVPN-PE for traffic originating outside
   the Tenant Domain, the PE MUST originate an SBD-IMET route (see
   Section 3.2.1).  This route MUST carry a PTA specifying the P2MP
   tunnel used for transmitting IP multicast packets that originate
   outside the tenant domain.  All EVPN-PEs of the Tenant Domain MUST
   join the tunnel specified in the PTA of an SBD-IMET route:

   o  If the tunnel is an RSVP-TE P2MP tunnel, the originator of the
      route MUST use RSVP-TE P2MP procedures to add each PE of the
      Tenant Domain to the tunnel, even PEs that have not originated an
      SBD-IMET route.

   o  If the tunnel is an mLDP or PIM tunnel, each PE importing the
      SBD-IMET route MUST add itself to the tunnel, using mLDP or PIM
      procedures, respectively.

   Whether or not a PE originates an SBD-IMET route, it will of course
   originate an IMET route for each BD to which it is attached.  Each of
   these IMET routes MUST carry the SBD-RT, as well as the RT for the BD
   to which it belongs.




Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 31]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


   If a received IMET route is not the SBD-IMET route, it will also be
   carrying the RT for its source BD.  The route's NLRI will carry the
   Tag ID for the source BD.  From the RT and the Tag ID, any PE
   receiving the route can determine the route's source BD.

   If the MPLS label field of the PTA contains zero, the specified P2MP
   tunnel is used only to carry frames of a single source BD.

   If the MPLS label field of the PTA does not contain zero, it MUST
   contain an upstream-assigned MPLS label that maps uniquely (in the
   context of the originating EVPN-PE) to the source BD (or, in the case
   of an SBD-IMET route, to the SBD).  The tunnel may then be used to
   carry frames of multiple source BDs.  The apparent source BD of a
   particular packet is inferred from the label carried by the packet.

   IP multicast traffic originating outside the Tenant Domain is
   transmitted with the label corresponding to the SBD, as specified in
   the ingress EVPN-PE's SBD-IMET route.

3.2.5.2.  Using Wildcard S-PMSI A-D Routes to Advertise Inclusive
          Tunnels Specific to IP Multicast

   The procedures of this section apply when (and only when) it is
   desired to transmit IP multicast traffic on an inclusive tunnel, but
   not on the same tunnel used to transmit BUM traffic.

   However, these procedures do NOT apply when the tunnel type is
   Ingress Replication or BIER, EXCEPT in the case where it is necessary
   to interwork between non-OISM PEs and OISM PEs, as specified in
   Section 5.

   Each EVPN-PE attached to the given Tenant Domain MUST originate an
   SBD-SPMSI A-D route.  The NLRI of that route MUST contain (C-*,C-*)
   (see [RFC6625]).  Additional rules for constructing that route are
   given in Section 3.2.1.

   In addition, an EVPN-PE MUST originate an S-PMSI A-D route containing
   (C-*,C-*) in its NLRI for each of the other BDs, in the given Tenant
   Domain, to which it is attached.  All such routes MUST carry the
   SBD-RT.  This ensures that those routes are imported by all EVPN-PEs
   attached to the Tenant Domain.

   A PE receiving these routes follows the procedures of Section 2.2 to
   determine which BD the route is for.

   If the MPLS label field of the PTA contains zero, the specified
   tunnel is used only to carry frames of a single source BD.




Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 32]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


   If the MPLS label field of the PTA does not contain zero, it MUST
   specify an upstream-assigned MPLS label that maps uniquely (in the
   context of the originating EVPN-PE) to the source BD.  The tunnel may
   be used to carry frames of multiple source BDs, and the apparent
   source BD for a particular packet is inferred from the label carried
   by the packet.

   The EVPN-PE advertising these S-PMSI A-D route routes is specifying
   the default tunnel that it will use (as ingress PE) for transmitting
   IP multicast packets.  The upstream-assigned label allows an egress
   PE to determine the apparent source BD of a given packet.

3.2.6.  Selective Tunnels

   An ingress EVPN-PE for a given multicast flow or set of flows can
   always assign the flow to a particular P2MP tunnel by originating an
   S-PMSI A-D route whose NLRI identifies the flow or set of flows.  The
   NLRI of the route could be (C-*,C-G), or (C-S,C-G).  The S-PMSI A-D
   route MUST carry the SBD-RT, so that it is imported by all EVPN-PEs
   attached to the Tenant Domain.

   An S-PMSI A-D route is "for" a particular source BD.  It MUST carry
   the RT associated with that BD, and it MUST have the Tag ID for that
   BD in its NLRI.

   When an EVPN-PE imports an S-PMSI A-D route, it applies the rules of
   Section 2.2 to associate the route with a particular BD.

   Each such route MUST contain a PTA, as specified in Section 3.2.5.2.

   An egress EVPN-PE interested in the specified flow or flows MUST join
   the specified tunnel.  Procedures for joining the specified tunnel
   are specific to the tunnel type.  (Note that if the tunnel type is
   RSVP-TE P2MP LSP, the Leaf Information Required (LIR) flag of the PTA
   SHOULD NOT be set.  An ingress OISM PE knows which OISM EVPN PEs are
   interested in any given flow, and hence can add them to the RSVP-TE
   P2MP tunnel that carries such flows.)

   If the PTA does not specify a non-zero MPLS label, the apparent
   source BD of any packets that arrive on that tunnel is considered to
   be the BD associated with the route that carries the PTA.  If the PTA
   does specify a non-zero MPLS label, the apparent source BD of any
   packets that arrive on that tunnel carrying the specified label is
   considered to be the BD associated with the route that carries the
   PTA.

   It should be noted that when either IR or BIER is used, there is no
   need for an ingress PE to use S-PMSI A-D routes to assign specific



Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 33]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


   flows to selective tunnels.  The procedures of Section 3.3, along
   with the procedures of Section 3.2.2, Section 3.2.3, or
   Section 3.2.4, provide the functionality of selective tunnels without
   the need to use S-PMSI A-D routes.

3.3.  Advertising SMET Routes

   [IGMP-Proxy] allows an egress EVPN-PE to express its interest in a
   particular multicast flow or set of flows by originating an SMET
   route.  The NLRI of the SMET route identifies the flow or set of
   flows as (C-*,C-*) or (C-*,C-G) or (C-S,C-G).

   Each SMET route belongs to a particular BD.  The Tag ID for the BD
   appears in the NLRI of the route, and the route carries the RT
   associated that that BD.  From this <RT, tag> pair, other EVPN-PEs
   can identify the BD to which a received SMET route belongs.
   (Remember though that the route may be carrying multiple RTs.)

   There are three cases to consider:

   o  Case 1: It is known that no BD of a Tenant Domain contains a
      multicast router.

      In this case, an egress PE advertises its interest in a flow or
      set of flows by originating an SMET route that belongs to the SBD.
      We refer to this as an SBD-SMET route.  The SBD-SMET route carries
      the SBD-RT, and has the Tag ID for the SBD in its NLRI.  SMET
      routes for the individual BDs are not needed, because there is no
      need for a PE that receives an SMET route to send a corresponding
      IGMP Join message out any of its ACs.

   o  Case 2: It is known that more than one BD of a Tenant Domain may
      contain a multicast router.

      This is very like Case 1.  An egress PE advertises its interest in
      a flow or set of flows by originating an SBD-SMET route.  The
      SBD-SMET route carries the SBD-RT, and has the Tag ID for the SBD
      in its NLRI.

      In this case, it is important to be sure that SMET routes for the
      individual BDs are not originated.  Suppose, for example, that PE1
      had local receivers for a given flow on both BD1 and BD2, and that
      it originated SMET routes for both those BDs.  Then PEs receiving
      those SMET routes might send IGMP Joins on both those BDs.  This
      could cause externally sourced multicast traffic to enter the
      Tenant Domain at both BDs, which could result in duplication of
      data.




Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 34]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


      N.B.: If it is possible that more than one BD contains a tenant
      multicast router, then in order to receive multicast data
      originating from outside EVPN, the PEs MUST follow the procedures
      of Section 6.

   o  Case 3: It is known that only a single BD of a Tenant Domain
      contains a multicast router.

      Suppose that an egress PE is attached to a BD on which there might
      be a tenant multicast router.  (The tenant router is not
      necessarily on a segment that is attached to that PE.)  And
      suppose that the PE has one or more ACs attached to that BD which
      are interested in a given multicast flow.  In this case, IN
      ADDITION to the SMET route for the SBD, the egress PE MAY
      originate an SMET route for that BD.  This will enable the ingress
      PE(s) to send IGMP/MLD messages on ACs for the BD, as specified in
      [IGMP-Proxy].  As long as that is the only BD on which there is a
      tenant multicast router, there is no possibility of duplication of
      data.

   This document does not specify procedures for dynamically determining
   which of the three cases applies to a given deployment; the PEs of a
   given Tenant Domain MUST be provisioned to know which case applies.

   As detailed in [IGMP-Proxy], an SMET route carries a Multicast Flags
   EC containing flags indicating whether it is to result in the
   propagation of IGMP v1, v2, or v3 messages on the ACs of the BD to
   which the SMET route belongs.  These flags SHOULD be set to zero in
   an SBD-SMET route.

   Note that a PE only needs to originate the set of SBD-SMET routes
   that are needed to pull in all the traffic in which it is interested.
   Suppose PE1 has ACs attached to BD1 that are interested in (C-*,C-G)
   traffic, and ACs attached to BD2 that are interested in (C-S,C-G)
   traffic.  A single SBD-SMET route specifying (C-*,C-G) will pull in
   all the necessary flows.

   As another example, suppose the ACs attached to BD1 are interested in
   (C-*,C-G) but not in (C-S,C-G), while the ACs attached to BD2 are
   interested in (C-S,C-G).  A single SBD-SMET route specifying
   (C-*,C-G) will pull in all the necessary flows.

   In other words, to determine the set of SBD-SMET routes that have to
   be sent for a given C-G, the PE has to merge the IGMP/MLD state for
   all the BDs (of the given Tenant Domain) to which it is attached.






Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 35]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


   Per [IGMP-Proxy], importing an SMET route for a particular BD will
   cause IGMP/MLD state to be instantiated for the IRB interface to that
   BD.  This applies as well when the BD is the SBD.

   However, traffic that originates in one of the actual BDs of a
   particular Tenant Domain MUST NOT be sent down the IRB interface that
   connects the L3 routing instance of that Tenant Domain to the SBD.
   That would cause duplicate delivery of traffic, since such traffic
   will have already been distributed throughout the Tenant Domain.
   Therefore, when setting up the IGMP/MLD state based on SBD-SMET
   routes, care must be taken to ensure that the IRB interface to the
   SBD is not added to the Outgoing Interface (OIF) list if the traffic
   originates within the Tenant Domain.

   There are some multicast scenarios that make use of "anycast
   sources".  For example, two different sources may share the same
   anycast IP address, say S1, and each may transmit an (S1,G) multicast
   flow.  In such a scenario, the two (S1,G) flows are typically
   identical.  Ordinary PIM procedures will cause only one the flows to
   be delivered to each receiver that has expressed interest in either
   (*,G) or (S1,G).  However, the OISM procedures described in this
   document will result in both of the (S1,G) flows being distributed in
   the Tenant Domain, and duplicate delivery will result.  Therefore, if
   there are receivers for (*,G) in a given Tenant Domain, there MUST
   NOT be anycast sources for G within that Tenant Domain.  (This
   restriction can be lifted by defining additional procedures; however
   that is outside the scope of this document.)

4.  Constructing Multicast Forwarding State

4.1.  Layer 2 Multicast State

   An EVPN-PE maintains "layer 2 multicast state" for each BD to which
   it is attached.

   Let PE1 be an EVPN-PE, and BD1 be a BD to which it is attached.  At
   PE1, BD1's layer 2 multicast state for a given (C-S,C-G) or (C-*,C-G)
   governs the disposition of an IP multicast packet that is received by
   BD1's layer 2 multicast function on an EVPN-PE.

   An IP multicast (S,G) packet is considered to have been received by
   BD1's layer 2 multicast function in PE1 in the following cases:

   o  The packet is the payload of an ethernet frame received by PE1
      from an AC that attaches to BD1.






Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 36]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


   o  The packet is the payload of an ethernet frame whose apparent
      source BD is BD1, and which is received by the PE1 over a tunnel
      from another EVPN-PE.

   o  The packet is received from BD1's IRB interface (i.e., has been
      transmitted by PE1's L3 routing instance down BD1's IRB
      interface).

   According to the procedures of this document, all transmission of IP
   multicast packets from one EVPN-PE to another is done at layer 2.
   That is, the packets are transmitted as ethernet frames, according to
   the layer 2 multicast state.

   Each layer 2 multicast state (S,G) or (*,G) contains a set "output
   interfaces" (OIF list).  The disposition of an (S,G) multicast frame
   received by BD1's layer 2 multicast function is determined as
   follows:

   o  The OIF list is taken from BD1's layer 2 (S,G) state, or if there
      is no such (S,G) state, then from BD1's (*,G) state.  (If neither
      state exists, the OIF list is considered to be null.)

   o  The rules of Section 4.1.2 are applied to the OIF list.  This will
      generally result in the frame being transmitted to some, but not
      all, elements of the OIF list.

   Note that there is no RPF check at layer 2.

4.1.1.  Constructing the OIF List

   In this document, we have extended the procedures of [IGMP-Proxy] so
   that IMET and SMET routes for a particular BD are distributed not
   just to PEs that attach to that BD, but to PEs that attach to any BD
   in the Tenant Domain.  In this way, each PE attached to a given
   Tenant Domain learns, from each other PE attached to the same Tenant
   Domain, the set of flows that are of interest to each of those other
   PEs.  (If some PE attached to the Tenant Domain does not support
   [IGMP-Proxy], it will be assumed to be interested in all flows.
   Whether a particular remote PE supports [IGMP-Proxy] is determined by
   the presence of an Extended Community in its IMET route; this is
   specified in [IGMP-Proxy].)  If a set of remote PEs are interested in
   a particular flow, the tunnels used to reach those PEs are added to
   the OIF list of the multicast states corresponding to that flow.

   An EVPN-PE may run IGMP/MLD procedures on each of its ACs, in order
   to determine the set of flows of interest to each AC.  (An AC is said
   to be interested in a given flow if it connects to a segment that has
   tenant systems interested in that flow.)  If IGMP/MLD procedures are



Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 37]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


   not being run on a given AC, that AC is considered to be interested
   in all flows.  For each BD, the set of ACs interested in a given flow
   is determined, and the ACs of that set are added to the OIF list of
   that BD's multicast state for that flow.

   The OIF list for each multicast state must also contain the IRB
   interface for the BD to which the state belongs.

   Implementors should note that the OIF list of a multicast state will
   change from time to time as ACs and/or remote PEs either become
   interested in, or lose interest in, particular multicast flows.

4.1.2.  Data Plane: Applying the OIF List to an (S,G) Frame

   When an (S,G) multicast frame is received by the layer 2 multicast
   function of a given EVPN-PE, say PE1, its disposition depends (a) the
   way it was received, (b) upon the OIF list of the corresponding
   multicast state (see Section 4.1.1), (c) upon the "eligibility" of an
   AC to receive a given frame (see Section 4.1.2.1 and (d) upon its
   apparent source BD (see Section 3.2 for information about determining
   the apparent source BD of a frame received over a tunnel from another
   PE).

4.1.2.1.  Eligibility of an AC to Receive a Frame

   A given (S,G) multicast frame is eligible to be transmitted by a
   given PE, say PE1, on a given AC, say AC1, only if one of the
   following conditions holds:

   1.  ESI labels are being used, PE1 is the DF for the segment to which
       AC1 is connected, and the frame did not originate from that same
       segment (as determined by the ESI label), or

   2.  The ingress PE for the frame is a remote PE, say PE2, local bias
       is being used, and PE2 is not connected to the same segment as
       AC1.

4.1.2.2.  Applying the OIF List

   Assume a given (S,G) multicast frame has been received by a given PE,
   say PE1.  PE1 determines the apparent source BD of the frame, finds
   the layer 2 (S,G) state for that BD (or the (*,G) state if there is
   no (S,G) state), and takes the OIF list from that state.  (Note that
   if PE1 is not attached to the actual source BD, the apparent source
   BD will be the SBD.)






Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 38]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


   Suppose PE1 has determined the frame's apparent source BD to be BD1
   (which may or may not be the SBD.)  There are the following cases to
   consider:

   1.  The frame was received by PE1 from a local AC, say AC1, that
       attaches to BD1.

       a.  The frame MUST be sent out all local ACs of BD1 that appear
           in the OIF list, except for AC1 itself.

       b.  The frame MUST also be delivered to any other EVPN-PEs that
           have interest in it.  This is achieved as follows:

           i.    If (a) AR is being used, and (b) PE1 is an AR-LEAF, and
                 (c) the OIF list is non-null, PE1 MUST send the frame
                 to the AR-REPLICATOR.

           ii.   Otherwise the frame MUST be sent on all tunnels in the
                 OIF list.

       c.  The frame MUST be sent to the local L3 routing instance by
           being sent up the IRB interface of BD1.  It MUST NOT be sent
           up any other IRB interfaces.

   2.  The frame was received by PE1 over a tunnel from another PE.
       (See Section 3.2 for the rules to determine the apparent source
       BD of a packet received from another PE.  Note that if PE1 is not
       attached to the source BD, it will regard the SBD as the apparent
       source BD.)

       a.  The frame MUST be sent out all local ACs in the OIF list that
           connect to BD1 and that are eligible (per Section 4.1.2.1) to
           receive the frame.

       b.  The frame MUST be sent up the IRB interface of the apparent
           source BD.  (Note that this may be the SBD.)  The frame MUST
           NOT be sent up any other IRB interfaces.

       c.  If PE1 is not an AR-REPLICATOR, it MUST NOT send the frame to
           any other EVPN-PEs.  However, if PE1 is an AR-REPLICATOR, it
           MUST send the frame to all tunnels in the OIF list, except
           for the tunnel over which the frame was received.

   3.  The frame was received by PE1 from the BD1 IRB interface (i.e.,
       the frame has been transmitted by PE1's L3 routing instance down
       the BD1 IRB interface), and BD1 is NOT the SBD.





Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 39]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


       a.  The frame MUST be sent out all local ACs in the OIF list that
           are eligible (per Section 4.1.2.1 to receive the frame.

       b.  The frame MUST NOT be sent to any other EVPN-PEs.

       c.  The frame MUST NOT be sent up any IRB interfaces.

   4.  The frame was received from the SBD IRB interface (i.e., has been
       transmitted by PE1's L3 routing instance down the SBD IRB
       interface).

       a.  The frame MUST be sent on all tunnels in the OIF list.  This
           causes the frame to be delivered to any other EVPN-PEs that
           have interest in it.

       b.  The frame MUST NOT be sent on any local ACs.

       c.  The frame MUST NOT be sent up any IRB interfaces.

4.2.  Layer 3 Forwarding State

   If an EVPN-PE is performing IGMP/MLD procedures on the ACs of a given
   BD, it processes those messages at layer 2 to help form the layer 2
   multicast state.  If also sends those messages up that BD's IRB
   interface to the L3 routing instance of a particular tenant domain.
   This causes layer 2 (C-S,C-G) or (C-*,C-G) L3 state to be created/
   updated.

   A layer 3 multicast state has both an Input Interface (IIF) and an
   OIF list.

   To set the IIF of an (C-S,C-G) state, the EVPN-PE must determine the
   source BD of C-S.  This is done by looking up S in the local
   MAC-VRF(s) of the given Tenant Domain.

   If the source BD is present on the PE, the IIF is set to the IRB
   interface that attaches to that BD.  Otherwise the IIF is set to the
   SBD IRB interface.

   For (C-*,C-G) states, traffic can arrive from any BD, so the IIF
   needs to be set to a wildcard value meaning "any IRB interface".

   The OIF list of these states includes one or more of the IRB
   interfaces of the Tenant Domain.  In general, maintenance of the OIF
   list does not require any EVPN-specific procedures.  However, there
   is one EVPN-specific rule:





Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 40]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


      If the IIF is one of the IRB interfaces (or the wild card meaning
      "any IRB interface"), then the SBD IRB interface MUST NOT be added
      to the OIF list.  Traffic originating from within a particular
      EVPN Tenant Domain must not be sent down the SBD IRB interface, as
      such traffic has already been distributed to all EVPN-PEs attached
      to that Tenant Domain.

   Please also see Section 6.1.1, which states a modification of this
   rule for the case where OISM is interworking with external Layer 3
   multicast routing.

5.  Interworking with non-OISM EVPN-PEs

   It is possible that a given Tenant Domain will be attached to both
   OISM PEs and non-OISM PEs.  Inter-subnet IP multicast should be
   possible and fully functional even if not all PEs attaching to a
   Tenant Domain can be upgraded to support OISM functionality.

   Note that the non-OISM PEs are not required to have IRB support, or
   support for [IGMP-Proxy].  It is however advantageous for the
   non-OISM PEs to support [IGMP-Proxy].

   In this section, we will use the following terminology:

   o  PE-S: the ingress PE for an (S,G) flow.

   o  PE-R: an egress PE for an (S,G) flow.

   o  BD-S: the source BD for an (S,G) flow.  PE-S must have one or more
      ACs attached BD-S, at least one of which attaches to host S.

   o  BD-R: a BD that contains a host interested in the flow.  The host
      is attached to PE-R via an AC that belongs to BD-R.

   To allow OISM PEs to interwork with non-OISM PEs, a given Tenant
   Domain needs to contain one or more "IP Multicast Gateways" (IPMGs).
   An IPMG is an OISM PE with special responsibilities regarding the
   interworking between OISM and non-OISM PEs.

   If a PE is functioning as an IPMG, it MUST signal this fact by
   setting the "IPMG" flag in the Multicast Flags EC that it attaches to
   its IMET routes.  An IPMG SHOULD attach this EC with the IPMG flag
   set to all IMET routes it originates.  However, if PE1 imports any
   IMET route from PE2 that has the EC present with the "IPMG" flag set,
   then the PE1 will assume that PE2 is an IPMG.

   An IPMG Designated Forwarder (IPMG-DF) selection procedure is used to
   ensure that, at any given time, there is exactly one active IPMG-DF



Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 41]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


   for any given BD.  Details of the IPMG-DF selection procedure are in
   Section 5.1.  The IPMG-DF for a given BD, say BD-S, has special
   functions to perform when it receives (S,G) frames on that BD:

   o  If the frames are from a non-OISM PE-S:

      *  The IPMG-DF forwards them to OISM PEs that do not attach to
         BD-S but have interest in (S,G).

         Note that OISM PEs that do attach to BD-S will have received
         the frames on the BUM tunnel from the non-OISM PE-S.

      *  The IPMG-DF forwards them to non-OISM PEs that have interest in
         (S,G) on ACs that do not belong to BD-S.

         Note that if a non-OISM PE has multiple BDs other than BD-S
         with interest in (S,G), it will receive one copy of the frame
         for each such BD.  This is necessary because the non-OISM PEs
         cannot move IP multicast traffic from one BD to another.

   o  If the frames are from an OISM PE, the IPMG-DF forwards them to
      non-OISM PEs that have interest in (S,G) on ACs that do not belong
      to BD-S.

      If a non-OISM PE has interest in (S,G) on an AC belonging to BD-S,
      it will have received a copy of the (S,G) frame, encapsulated for
      BD-S, from the OISM PE-S.  (See Section 3.2.2.)  If the non-OISM
      PE has interest in (S,G) on one or more ACs belonging to
      BD-R1,...,BD-Rk where the BD-Ri are distinct from BD-S, the
      IPMG-DF needs to send it a copy of the frame for BD-Ri.

   If an IPMG receives a frame on a BD for which it is not the IPMG-DF,
   it just follows normal OISM procedures.

   This section specifies several sets of procedures:

   o  the procedures that the IPMG-DF for a given BD needs to follow
      when receiving, on that BD, an IP multicast frame from a non-OISM
      PE;

   o  the procedures that the IPMG-DF for a given BD needs to follow
      when receiving, on that BD, an IP multicast frame from an OISM PE;

   o  the procedures that an OISM PE needs to follow when receiving, on
      a given BD, an IP multicast frame from a non-OISM PE, when the
      OISM PE is not the IPMG-DF for that BD.





Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 42]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


   To enable OISM/non-OISM interworking in a given Tenant Domain, the
   Tenant Domain MUST have some EVPN-PEs that can function as IPMGs.  An
   IPMG must be configured with the SBD.  It must also be configured
   with every BD of the Tenant Domain that exists on any of the non-OISM
   PEs of that domain.  (Operationally, it may be simpler to configure
   the IPMG with all the BDs of the Tenant Domain.)

   A non-OISM PE of course only needs to be configured with BDs for
   which it has ACs.  An OISM PE that is not an IPMG only needs to be
   configured with the SBD and with the BDs for which it has ACs.

   An IPMG MUST originate a wildcard SMET route (with (C-*,C-*) in the
   NLRI) for each BD in the Tenant Domain.  This will cause it to
   receive all the IP multicast traffic that is sourced in the Tenant
   Domain.  Note that non-OISM nodes that do not support [IGMP-Proxy]
   will send all the multicast traffic from a given BD to all PEs
   attached to that BD, even if those PEs do not originate an SMET
   route.

   The interworking procedures vary somewhat depending upon whether
   packets are transmitted from PE to PE via Ingress Replication (IR) or
   via Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) tunnels.  We do not consider the use
   of BIER in this section, due to the low likelihood of there being a
   non-OISM PE that supports BIER.

5.1.  IPMG Designated Forwarder

   Every PE that is eligible for selection as an IPMG-DF for a
   particular BD originates both an IMET route for that BD and an
   SBD-IMET route.  As stated in Section 5, these SBD-IMET routes carry
   a Multicast Flags EC with the IPMG Flag set.

   These SBD-IMET routes SHOULD also carry a DF Election EC.  The DF
   Election EC and its use is specified in ([DF-Election-Framework]).
   When the route is originated, the AC-DF bit in the DF Election EC
   SHOULD be set to zero.  This bit is not used when selecting an
   IPMSG-DF, i.e., it MUST be ignored by the receiver of an SBD-IMET
   route.

   In the context of a given Tenant Domain, to select the IPMG-DF for a
   particular BD, say BD1, the IPMGs of the Tenant Domain perform the
   following procedure:

   o  From the set of received SBD-IMET routes for the given tenant
      domain, determine the candidate set of PEs that support IPMG
      functionality for that domain.





Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 43]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


   o  Eliminate from that candidate set any PEs from which an IMET route
      for BD1 has not been received.

   o  Select a DF Election algorithm as specified in
      [DF-Election-Framework].  Some of the possible algorithms can be
      found, e.g., in [DF-Election-Framework], [RFC7432], and
      [EVPN-DF-WEIGHTED].

   o  Apply the DF Election Algorithm (see [DF-Election-Framework]) to
      the candidate set of PEs.  The "winner' becomes the IPMG-DF for
      BD1.

   Note that even if a given PE supports MEG (Section 6.1.2) and/or PEG
   (Section 6.1.4) functionality, as well as IPMG functionality, its
   SBD-IMET routes carry only one DF Election EC.

5.2.  Ingress Replication

   The procedures of this section are used when Ingress Replication is
   used to transmit packets from one PE to another.

   When a non-OISM PE-S transmits a multicast frame from BD-S to another
   PE, PE-R, PE-S will use the encapsulation specified in the BD-S IMET
   route that was originated by PE-R.  This encapsulation will include
   the label that appears in the "MPLS label" field of the PMSI Tunnel
   attribute (PTA) of the IMET route.  If the tunnel type is VXLAN, the
   "label" is actually a Virtual Network Identifier (VNI); for other
   tunnel types, the label is an MPLS label.  In either case, we will
   speak of the transmitted frames as carrying a label that was assigned
   to a particular BD by the PE-R to which the frame is being
   transmitted.

   To support OISM/non-OISM interworking, an OISM PE-R MUST originate,
   for each of its BDs, both an IMET route and an S-PMSI (C-*,C-*) A-D
   route.  Note that even when IR is being used, interworking between
   OISM and non-OISM PEs requires the OISM PEs to follow the rules of
   Section 3.2.5.2, as modified below.

   Non-OISM PEs will not understand S-PMSI A-D routes.  So when a
   non-OISM PE-S transmits an IP multicast frame with a particular
   source BD to an IPMG, it encapsulates the frame using the label
   specified in that IPMG's BD-S IMET route.  (This is just the
   procedure of [RFC7432].)

   The (C-*,C-*) S-PMSI A-D route originated by a given OISM PE will
   have a PTA that specifies IR.





Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 44]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


   o  If MPLS tunneling is being used, the MPLS label field SHOULD
      contain a non-zero value, and the LIR flag SHOULD be zero.  (The
      case where the MPLS label field is zero or the LIR flag is set is
      outside the scope of this document.)

   o  If the tunnel encapsulation is VXLAN, the MPLS label field MUST
      contain a non-zero value, and the LIR flag MUST be zero.

   When an OISM PE-S transmits an IP multicast frame to an IPMG, it will
   use the label specified in that IPMG's (C-*,C-*) S-PMSI A-D route.

   When a PE originates both an IMET route and a (C-*,C-*) S-PMSI A-D
   route, the values of the MPLS label field in the respective PTAs must
   be distinct.  Further, each MUST map uniquely (in the context of the
   originating PE) to the route's BD.

   As a result, an IPMG receiving an MPLS-encapsulated IP multicast
   frame can always tell by the label whether the frame's ingress PE is
   an OISM PE or a non-OISM PE.  When an IPMG receives a VXLAN-
   encapsulated IP multicast frame it may need to determine the identity
   of the ingress PE from the outer IP encapsulation; it can then
   determine whether the ingress PE is an OISM PE or a non-OISM PE by
   looking the IMET route from that PE.

   Suppose an IPMG receives an IP multicast frame from another EVPN-PE
   in the Tenant Domain, and the IPMG is not the IPMG-DF for the frame's
   source BD.  Then the IPMG performs only the ordinary OISM functions;
   it does not perform the IPMG-specific functions for that frame.  In
   the remainder of this section, when we discuss the procedures applied
   by an IPMG when it receives an IP multicast frame, we are presuming
   that the source BD of the frame is a BD for which the IPMG is the
   IPMG-DF.

   We have two basic cases to consider: (1) a frame's ingress PE is a
   non-OISM node, and (2) a frame's ingress PE is an OISM node.

5.2.1.  Ingress PE is non-OISM

   In this case, a non-OISM PE, PE-S, has received an (S,G) multicast
   frame over an AC that is attached to a particular BD, BD-S.  By
   virtue of normal EVPN procedures, PE-S has sent a copy of the frame
   to every PE-R (both OISM and non-OISM) in the Tenant Domain that is
   attached to BD-S.  If the non-OISM node supports [IGMP-Proxy], only
   PEs that have expressed interest in (S,G) receive the frame.  The
   IPMG will have expressed interest via a (C-*,C-*) SMET route and thus
   receives the frame.





Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 45]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


   Any OISM PE (including an IPMG) receiving the frame will apply normal
   OISM procedures.  As a result it will deliver the frame to any of its
   local ACs (in BD-S or in any other BD) that have interest in (S,G).

   An OISM PE that is also the IPMG-DF for a particular BD, say BD-S,
   has additional procedures that it applies to frames received on BD-S
   from non-OISM PEs:

   1.   When the IPMG-DF for BD-S receives an (S,G) frame from a
        non-OISM node, it MUST forward a copy of the frame to every OISM
        PE that is NOT attached to BD-S but has interest in (S,G).  The
        copy sent to a given OISM PE-R must carry the label that PE-R
        has assigned to the SBD in an S-PMSI A-D route.  The IPMG MUST
        NOT do any IP processing of the frame's IP payload.  TTL
        decrement and other IP processing will be done by PE-R, per the
        normal OISM procedures.  There is no need for the IPMG to
        include an ESI label in the frame's tunnel encapsulation,
        because it is already known that the frame's source BD has no
        presence on PE-R.  There is also no need for the IPMG to modify
        the frame's MAC SA.

   2.   In addition, when the IPMG-DF for BD-S receives an (S,G) frame
        from a non-OISM node, it may need to forward copies of the frame
        to other non-OISM nodes.  Before it does so, it MUST decapsulate
        the (S,G) packet, and do the IP processing (e.g., TTL
        decrement).  Suppose PE-R is a non-OISM node that has an AC to
        BD-R, where BD-R is not the same as BD-S, and that AC has
        interest in (S,G).  The IPMG must then encapsulate the (S,G)
        packet (after the IP processing has been done) in an ethernet
        header.  The MAC SA field will have the MAC address of the
        IPMG's IRB interface to BD-R.  The IPMG then sends the frame to
        PE-R.  The tunnel encapsulation will carry the label that PE-R
        advertised in its IMET route for BD-R.  There is no need to
        include an ESI label, as the source and destination BDs are
        known to be different.

        Note that if a non-OISM PE-R has several BDs (other than BD-S)
        with local ACs that have interest in (S,G), the IPMG will send
        it one copy for each such BD.  This is necessary because the
        non-OISM PE cannot move packets from one BD to another.

   There may be deployment scenarios in which every OISM PE is
   configured with every BD that is present on any non-OISM PE.  In such
   scenarios, the procedures of item 1 above will not actually result in
   the transmission of any packets.  Hence if it is known a priori that
   this deployment scenario exists for a given tenant domain, the
   procedures of item 1 above can be disabled.




Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 46]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


5.2.2.  Ingress PE is OISM

   In this case, an OISM PE, PE-S, has received an (S,G) multicast frame
   over an AC that attaches to a particular BD, BD-S.

   By virtue of receiving all the IMET routes about BD-S, PE-S will know
   all the PEs attached to BD-S.  By virtue of normal OISM procedures:

   o  PE-S will send a copy of the frame to every OISM PE-R (including
      the IPMG) in the Tenant Domain that is attached to BD-S and has
      interest in (S,G).  The copy sent to a given PE-R carries the
      label that that the PE-R has assigned to BD-S in its (C-*,C-*)
      S-PMSI A-D route.

   o  PE-S will also transmit a copy of the (S,G) frame to every OISM
      PE-R that has interest in (S,G) but is not attached to BD-S.  The
      copy will contain the label that the PE-R has assigned to the SBD.
      (As in Section 5.2.1, an IPMG is assumed to have indicated
      interest in all multicast flows.)

   o  PE-S will also transmit a copy of the (S,G) frame to every
      non-OISM PE-R that is attached to BD-S.  It does this using the
      label advertised by that PE-R in its IMET route for BD-S.

   The PE-Rs follow their normal procedures.  An OISM PE that receives
   the (S,G) frame on BD-S applies the OISM procedures to deliver the
   frame to its local ACs, as necessary.  A non-OISM PE that receives
   the (S,G) frame on BD-S delivers the frame only to its local BD-S
   ACs, as necessary.

   Suppose that a non-OISM PE-R has interest in (S,G) on a BD, BD-R,
   that is different than BD-S.  If the non-OISM PE-R is attached to
   BD-S, the OISM PE-S will send forward it the original (S,G) multicast
   frame, but the non-OISM PE-R will not be able to send the frame to
   ACs that are not in BD-S.  If PE-R is not even attached to BD-S, the
   OISM PE-S will not send it a copy of the frame at all, because PE-R
   is not attached to the SBD.  In these cases, the IPMG needs to relay
   the (S,G) multicast traffic from OISM PE-S to non-OISM PE-R.

   When the IPMG-DF for BD-S receives an (S,G) frame from an OISM PE-S,
   it has to forward it to every non-OISM PE-R that that has interest in
   (S,G) on a BD-R that is different than BD-S.  The IPMG MUST
   decapsulate the IP multicast packet, do the IP processing, re-
   encapsulate it for BD-R (changing the MAC SA to the IPMG's own MAC
   address on BD-R), and send a copy of the frame to PE-R.  Note that a
   given non-OISM PE-R will receive multiple copies of the frame, if it
   has multiple BDs on which there is interest in the frame.




Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 47]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


5.3.  P2MP Tunnels

   When IR is used to distribute the multicast traffic among the
   EVPN-PEs, the procedures of Section 5.2 ensure that there will be no
   duplicate delivery of multicast traffic.  That is, no egress PE will
   ever send a frame twice on any given AC.  If P2MP tunnels are being
   used to distribute the multicast traffic, it is necessary have
   additional procedures to prevent duplicate delivery.

   At the present time, it is not clear that there will be a use case in
   which OISM nodes need to interwork with non-OISM nodes that use P2MP
   tunnels.  If it is determined that there is such a use case,
   procedures for it will be included in a future revision of this
   document.

6.  Traffic to/from Outside the EVPN Tenant Domain

   In this section, we discuss scenarios where a multicast source
   outside a given EVPN Tenant Domain sends traffic to receivers inside
   the domain (as well as, possibly, to receivers outside the domain).
   This requires the OISM procedures to interwork with various layer 3
   multicast routing procedures.

   We assume in this section that the Tenant Domain is not being used as
   an intermediate transit network for multicast traffic; that is, we do
   not consider the case where the Tenant Domain contains multicast
   routers that will receive traffic from sources outside the domain and
   forward the traffic to receivers outside the domain.  The transit
   scenario is considered in Section 7.

   We can divide the non-transit scenarios into two classes:

   1.   One or more of the EVPN PE routers provide the functionality
        needed to interwork with layer 3 multicast routing procedures.

   2.   A single BD in the Tenant Domain contains external multicast
        routers ("tenant multicast routers"), and those tenant multicast
        routers are used to interwork, on behalf of the entire Tenant
        Domain, with layer 3 multicast routing procedures.

6.1.  Layer 3 Interworking via EVPN OISM PEs

6.1.1.  General Principles

   Sometimes it is necessary to interwork an EVPN Tenant Domain with an
   external layer 3 multicast domain (the "external domain").  This is
   needed to allow EVPN tenant systems to receive multicast traffic from
   sources ("external sources") outside the EVPN Tenant Domain.  It is



Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 48]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


   also needed to allow receivers ("external receivers") outside the
   EVPN Tenant Domain to receive traffic from sources inside the Tenant
   Domain.

   In order to allow interworking between an EVPN Tenant Domain and an
   external domain, one or more OISM PEs must be "L3 Gateways".  An L3
   Gateway participates both in the OISM procedures and in the L3
   multicast routing procedures of the external domain.

   An L3 Gateway that has interest in receiving (S,G) traffic must be
   able to determine the best route to S.  If an L3 Gateway has interest
   in (*,G), it must be able to determine the best route to G's RP.  In
   these interworking scenarios, the L3 Gateway must be running a layer
   3 unicast routing protocol.  Via this protocol, it imports unicast
   routes (either IP routes or VPN-IP routes) from routers other than
   EVPN PEs.  And since there may be multicast sources inside the EVPN
   Tenant Domain, the EVPN PEs also need to export, either as IP routes
   or as VPN-IP routes (depending upon the external domain), unicast
   routes to those sources.

   When selecting the best route to a multicast source or RP, an L3
   Gateway might have a choice between an EVPN route and an IP/VPN-IP
   route.  When such a choice exists, the L3 Gateway SHOULD always
   prefer the EVPN route.  This will ensure that when traffic originates
   in the Tenant Domain and has a receiver in the Tenant Domain, the
   path to that receiver will remain within the EVPN Tenant Domain, even
   if the source is also reachable via a routed path.  This also
   provides protection against sub-optimal routing that might occur if
   two EVPN PEs export IP/VPN-IP routes and each imports the other's IP/
   VPN-IP routes.

   Section 4.2 discusses the way layer 3 multicast states are
   constructed by OISM PEs.  These layer 3 multicast states have IRB
   interfaces as their IIF and OIF list entries, and are the basis for
   interworking OISM with other layer 3 multicast procedures such as
   MVPN or PIM.  From the perspective of the layer 3 multicast
   procedures running in a given L3 Gateway, an EVPN Tenant Domain is a
   set of IRB interfaces.

   When interworking an EVPN Tenant Domain with an external domain, the
   L3 Gateway's layer 3 multicast states will not only have IRB
   interfaces as IIF and OIF list entries, but also other "interfaces"
   that lead outside the Tenant Domain.  For example, when interworking
   with MVPN, the multicast states may have MVPN tunnels as well as IRB
   interfaces as IIF or OIF list members.  When interworking with PIM,
   the multicast states may have PIM-enabled non-IRB interfaces as IIF
   or OIF list members.




Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 49]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


   As long as a Tenant Domain is not being used as an intermediate
   transit network for IP multicast traffic, it is not necessary to
   enable PIM on its IRB interfaces.

   In general, an L3 Gateway has the following responsibilities:

   o  It exports, to the external domain, unicast routes to those
      multicast sources in the EVPN Tenant Domain that are locally
      attached to the L3 Gateway.

   o  It imports, from the external domain, unicast routes to multicast
      sources that are in the external domain.

   o  It executes the procedures necessary to draw externally sourced
      multicast traffic that is of interest to locally attached
      receivers in the EVPN Tenant Domain.  When such traffic is
      received, the traffic is sent down the IRB interfaces of the BDs
      on which the locally attached receivers reside.

   One of the L3 Gateways in a given Tenant Domain becomes the "DR" for
   the SBD.  (See Section 6.1.2.4.)  This L3 gateway has the following
   additional responsibilities:

   o  It exports, to the external domain, unicast routes to multicast
      sources that in the EVPN Tenant Domain that are not locally
      attached to any L3 gateway.

   o  It imports, from the external domain, unicast routes to multicast
      sources that are in the external domain.

   o  It executes the procedures necessary to draw externally sourced
      multicast traffic that is of interest to receivers in the EVPN
      Tenant Domain that are not locally attached to an L3 gateway.
      When such traffic is received, the traffic is sent down the SBD
      IRB interface.  OISM procedures already described in this document
      will then ensure that the IP multicast traffic gets distributed
      throughout the Tenant Domain to any EVPN PEs that have interest in
      it.  Thus to an OISM PE that is not an L3 gateway the externally
      sourced traffic will appear to have been sourced on the SBD.

   In order for this to work, some special care is needed when an L3
   gateway creates or modifies a layer 3 (*,G) multicast state.  Suppose
   group G has both external sources (sources outside the EVPN Tenant
   Domain) and internal sources (sources inside the EVPN tenant domain).
   Section 4.2 states that when there are internal sources, the SBD IRB
   interface must not be added to the OIF list of the (*,G) state.
   Traffic from internal sources will already have been delivered to all
   the EVPN PEs that have interest in it.  However, if the OIF list of



Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 50]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


   the (*,G) state does not contain its SBD IRB interface, then traffic
   from external sources will not get delivered to other EVPN PEs.

   One way of handling this is the following.  When a L3 gateway
   receives (S,G) traffic from other than an IRB interface, and the
   traffic corresponds to a layer 3 (*,G) state, the L3 gateway can
   create (S,G) state.  The IIF will be set to the external interface
   over which the traffic is expected.  The OIF list will contain the
   SBD IRB interface, as well as the IRB interfaces of any other BDs
   attached to the PEG DR that have locally attached receivers with
   interest in the (S,G) traffic.  The (S,G) state will ensure that the
   external traffic is sent down the SBD IRB interface.  The following
   text will assume this procedure; however other implementation
   techniques may also be possible.

   If a particular BD is attached to several L3 Gateways, one of the L3
   Gateways becomes the DR for that BD.  (See Section 6.1.2.4.)  If the
   interworking scenario requires FHR functionality, it is generally the
   DR for a particular BD that is responsible for performing that
   functionality on behalf of the source hosts on that BD.  (E.g., if
   the interworking scenario requires that PIM Register messages be sent
   by a FHR, the DR for a given BD would send the PIM Register messages
   for sources on that BD.)  Note though that the DR for the SBD does
   not perform FHR functionality on behalf of external sources.

   An optional alternative is to have each L3 gateway perform FHR
   functionality for locally attached sources.  Then the DR would only
   have to perform FHR functionality on behalf of sources that are
   locally attached to itself AND sources that are not attached to any
   L3 gateway.

   N.B.: If it is possible that more than one BD contains a tenant
   multicast router, then a PE receiving an SMET route for that BD MUST
   NOT reconstruct IGMP Join Reports from the SMET route, and MUST NOT
   transmit any such IGMP Join Reports on its local ACs attaching to
   that BD.  Otherwise, multicast traffic may be duplicated.

6.1.2.  Interworking with MVPN

   In this section, we specify the procedures necessary to allow EVPN
   PEs running OISM procedures to interwork with L3VPN PEs that run BGP-
   based MVPN ([RFC6514]) procedures.  More specifically, the procedures
   herein allow a given EVPN Tenant Domain to become part of an L3VPN/
   MVPN, and support multicast flows where either:

   o  The source of a given multicast flow is attached to an ethernet
      segment whose BD is part of an EVPN Tenant Domain, and one or more




Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 51]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


      receivers of the flow are attached to the network via L3VPN/MVPN.
      (Other receivers may be attached to the network via EVPN.)

   o  The source of a given multicast flow is attached to the network
      via L3VPN/MVPN, and one or more receivers of the flow are attached
      to an ethernet segment that is part of an EVPN tenant domain.
      (Other receivers may be attached via L3VPN/MVPN.)

   In this interworking model, existing L3VPN/MVPN PEs are unaware that
   certain sources or receivers are part of an EVPN Tenant Domain.  The
   existing L3VPN/MVPN nodes run only their standard procedures and are
   entirely unaware of EVPN.  Interworking is achieved by having some or
   all of the EVPN PEs function as L3 Gateways running L3VPN/MVPN
   procedures, as detailed in the following sub-sections.

   In this section, we assume that there are no tenant multicast routers
   on any of the EVPN-attached ethernet segments.  (There may of course
   be multicast routers in the L3VPN.)  Consideration of the case where
   there are tenant multicast routers is deferred till Section 7.)

   To support MVPN/EVPN interworking, we introduce the notion of an
   MVPN/EVPN Gateway, or MEG.

   A MEG is an L3 Gateway (see Section 6.1.1), hence is both an OISM PE
   and an L3VPN/MVPN PE.  For a given EVPN Tenant Domain it will have an
   IP-VRF.  If the Tenant Domain is part of an L3VPN/MVPN, the IP-VRF
   also serves as an L3VPN VRF ([RFC4364]).  The IRB interfaces of the
   IP-VRF are considered to be "VRF interfaces" of the L3VPN VRF.  The
   L3VPN VRF may also have other local VRF interfaces that are not EVPN
   IRB interfaces.

   The VRF on the MEG will import VPN-IP routes ([RFC4364]) from other
   L3VPN Provider Edge (PE) routers.  It will also export VPN-IP routes
   to other L3VPN PE routers.  In order to do so, it must be
   appropriately configured with the Route Targets used in the L3VPN to
   control the distribution of the VPN-IP routes.  These Route Targets
   will in general be different than the Route Targets used for
   controlling the distribution of EVPN routes, as there is no need to
   distribute EVPN routes to L3VPN-only PEs and no reason to distribute
   L3VPN/MVPN routes to EVPN-only PEs.

   Note that the RDs in the imported VPN-IP routes will not necessarily
   conform to the EVPN rules (as specified in [RFC7432]) for creating
   RDs.  Therefore a MEG MUST NOT expect the RDs of the VPN-IP routes to
   be of any particular format other than what is required by the L3VPN/
   MVPN specifications.





Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 52]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


   The VPN-IP routes that a MEG exports to L3VPN are subnet routes and/
   or host routes for the multicast sources that are part of the EVPN
   tenant domain.  The exact set of routes that need to be exported is
   discussed in Section 6.1.2.2.

   Each IMET route originated by a MEG SHOULD carry a Multicast Flags
   Extended Community with the "MEG" flag set, indicating that the
   originator of the IMET route is a MEG.  However, PE1 will consider
   PE2 to be a MEG if PE1 imports at least one IMET route from PE2 that
   carries the Multicast Flags EC with the MEG flag set.

   All the MEGs of a given Tenant Domain attach to the SBD of that
   domain, and one of them is selected to be the SBD's Designated Router
   (the "MEG SBD-DR") for the domain.  The selection procedure is
   discussed in Section 6.1.2.4.

   In this model of operation, MVPN procedures and EVPN procedures are
   largely independent.  In particular, there is no assumption that MVPN
   and EVPN use the same kind of tunnels.  Thus no special procedures
   are needed to handle the common scenarios where, e.g., EVPN uses
   VXLAN tunnels but MVPN uses MPLS P2MP tunnels, or where EVPN uses
   Ingress Replication but MVPN uses MPLS P2MP tunnels.

   Similarly, no special procedures are needed to prevent duplicate data
   delivery on ethernet segments that are multi-homed.

   The MEG does have some special procedures (described below) for
   interworking between EVPN and MVPN; these have to do with selection
   of the Upstream PE for a given multicast source, with the exporting
   of VPN-IP routes, and with the generation of MVPN C-multicast routes
   triggered by the installation of SMET routes.

6.1.2.1.  MVPN Sources with EVPN Receivers

6.1.2.1.1.  Identifying MVPN Sources

   Consider a multicast source S.  It is possible that a MEG will import
   both an EVPN unicast route to S and a VPN-IP route (or an ordinary IP
   route), where the prefix length of each route is the same.  In order
   to draw (S,G) multicast traffic for any group G, the MEG SHOULD use
   the EVPN route rather than the VPN-IP or IP route to determine the
   "Upstream PE" (see section 5 of [RFC6513]).

   Doing so ensures that when an EVPN tenant system desires to receive a
   multicast flow from another EVPN tenant system, the traffic from the
   source to that receiver stays within the EVPN domain.  This prevents
   problems that might arise if there is a unicast route via L3VPN to S,
   but no multicast routers along the routed path.  This also prevents



Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 53]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


   problem that might arise as a result of the fact that the MEGs will
   import each others' VPN-IP routes.

   In the Section 6.1.2.1.2, we describe the procedures to be used when
   the selected route to S is a VPN-IP route.

6.1.2.1.2.  Joining a Flow from an MVPN Source

   Consider a tenant system, R, on a particular BD, BD-R.  Suppose R
   wants to receive (S,G) multicast traffic, where source S is not
   attached to any PE in the EVPN Tenant Domain, but is attached to an
   MVPN PE.

   o  Suppose R is on a singly homed ethernet segment of BD-R, and that
      segment is attached to PE1, where PE1 is a MEG.  PE1 learns via
      IGMP/MLD listening that R is interested in (S,G).  PE1 determines
      from its VRF that there is no route to S within the Tenant Domain
      (i.e., no EVPN RT-2 route with S's IP address), but that there is
      a route to S via L3VPN (i.e., the VRF contains a subnet or host
      route to S that was received as a VPN-IP route).  PE1 thus
      originates (if it hasn't already) an MVPN C-multicast Source Tree
      Join(S,G) route.  The route is constructed according to normal
      MVPN procedures.

      The layer 2 multicast state is constructed as specified in
      Section 4.1.

      In the layer 3 multicast state, the IIF is the appropriate MVPN
      tunnel, and the IRB interface to BD-R is added to the OIF list.

      When PE1 receives (S,G) traffic from the appropriate MVPN tunnel,
      it performs IP processing of the traffic, and then sends the
      traffic down its IRB interface to BD-R.  Following normal OISM
      procedures, the (S,G) traffic will be encapsulated for ethernet
      and sent out the AC to which R is attached.

   o  Suppose R is on a singly homed ethernet segment of BD-R, and that
      segment is attached to PE1, where PE1 is an OISM PE but is NOT a
      MEG.  PE1 learns via IGMP/MLD listening that R is interested in
      (S,G).  PE1 follows normal OISM procedures, originating an SBD-
      SMET route for (S,G); this route will be received by all the MEGs
      of the Tenant Domain, including the MEG SBD-DR.  The MEG SBD-DR
      can determine from PE1's IMET routes whether PE1 is itself a MEG.
      If PE1 is not a MEG, the MEG SBD-DR will originate (if it hasn't
      already) an MVPN C-multicast Source Tree Join(S,G) route.  This
      will cause the MEG SBD-DR to receive (S,G) traffic on an MVPN
      tunnel.




Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 54]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


      The layer 2 multicast state is constructed as specified in
      Section 4.1.

      In the layer 3 multicast state, the IIF is the appropriate MVPN
      tunnel, and the IRB interface to the SBD is added to the OIF list.

      When the MEG SBD-DR receives (S,G) traffic on an MVPN tunnel, it
      performs IP processing of the traffic, and the sends the traffic
      down its IRB interface to the SBD.  Following normal OISM
      procedures, the traffic will be encapsulated for ethernet and
      delivered to all PEs in the Tenant Domain that have interest in
      (S,G), including PE1.

   o  If R is on a multi-homed ethernet segment of BD-R, one of the PEs
      attached to the segment will be its DF (following normal EVPN
      procedures), and the DF will know (via IGMP/MLD listening or the
      procedures of [IGMP-Proxy]) that a tenant system reachable via one
      of its local ACs to BD-R is interested in (S,G) traffic.  The DF
      is responsible for originating an SBD-SMET route for (S,G),
      following normal OISM procedures.  If the DF is a MEG, it MUST
      originate the corresponding MVPN C-multicast Source Tree Join(S,G)
      route; if the DF is not a MEG, the MEG SBD-DR SBD MUST originate
      the C-multicast route when it receives the SMET route.

      Optionally, if the non-DF is a MEG, it MAY originate the
      corresponding MVPN C-multicast Source Tree Join(S,G) route.  This
      will cause the traffic to flow to both the DF and the non-DF, but
      only the DF will forward the traffic out an AC.  This allows for
      quicker recovery if the DF's local AC to R fails.

   o  If R is attached to a non-OISM PE, it will receive the traffic via
      an IPMG, as specified in Section 5.

   If an EVPN-attached receiver is interested in (*,G) traffic, and if
   it is possible for there to be sources of (*,G) traffic that are
   attached only to L3VPN nodes, the MEGs will have to know the group-
   to-RP mappings.  That will enable them to originate MVPN C-multicast
   Shared Tree Join(*,G) routes and to send them towards the RP.  (Since
   we are assuming in this section that there are no tenant multicast
   routers attached to the EVPN Tenant Domain, the RP must be attached
   via L3VPN.  Alternatively, the MEG itself could be configured to
   function as an RP for group G.)

   The layer 2 multicast states are constructed as specified in
   Section 4.1.

   In the layer 3 (*,G) multicast state, the IIF is the appropriate MVPN
   tunnel.  A MEG will add to the (*,G) OIF list its IRB interfaces for



Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 55]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


   any BDs containing locally attached receivers.  If there are
   receivers attached to other EVPN PEs, then whenever (S,G) traffic
   from an external source matches a (*,G) state, the MEG will create
   (S,G) state, with the MVPN tunnel as the IIF, the OIF list copied
   from the (*,G) state, and the SBD IRB interface added to the OIF
   list.  (Please see the discussion in Section 6.1.1 regarding the
   inclusion of the SBD IRB interface in a (*,G) state; the SBD IRB
   interface is used in the OIF list only for traffic from external
   sources.)

   Normal MVPN procedures will then result in the MEG getting the (*,G)
   traffic from all the multicast sources for G that are attached via
   L3VPN.  This traffic arrives on MVPN tunnels.  When the MEG removes
   the traffic from these tunnels, it does the IP processing.  If there
   are any receivers on a given BD, BD-R, that are attached via local
   EVPN ACs, the MEG sends the traffic down its BD-R IRB interface.  If
   there are any other EVPN PEs that are interested in the (*,G)
   traffic, the MEG sends the traffic down the SBD IRB interface.
   Normal OISM procedures then distribute the traffic as needed to other
   EVPN-PEs.

6.1.2.2.  EVPN Sources with MVPN Receivers

6.1.2.2.1.  General procedures

   Consider the case where an EVPN tenant system S is sending IP
   multicast traffic to group G, and there is a receiver R for the (S,G)
   traffic that is attached to the L3VPN, but not attached to the EVPN
   Tenant Domain.  (We assume in this document that the L3VPN/MVPN-only
   nodes will not have any special procedures to deal with the case
   where a source is inside an EVPN domain.)

   In this case, an L3VPN PE through which R can be reached has to send
   an MVPN C-multicast Join(S,G) route to one of the MEGs that is
   attached to the EVPN Tenant Domain.  For this to happen, the L3VPN PE
   must have imported a VPN-IP route for S (either a host route or a
   subnet route) from a MEG.

   If a MEG determines that there is multicast source transmitting on
   one of its ACs, the MEG SHOULD originate a VPN-IP host route for that
   source.  This determination SHOULD be made by examining the IP
   multicast traffic that arrives on the ACs.  (It MAY be made by
   provisioning.)  A MEG SHOULD NOT export a VPN-IP host route for any
   IP address that is not known to be a multicast source (unless it has
   some other reason for exporting such a route).  The VPN-IP host route
   for a given multicast source MUST be withdrawn if the source goes
   silent for a configurable period of time, or if it can be determined
   that the source is no longer reachable via a local AC.



Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 56]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


   A MEG SHOULD also originate a VPN-IP subnet route for each of the BDs
   in the Tenant Domain.

   VPN-IP routes exported by a MEG must carry any attributes or extended
   communities that are required by L3VPN and MVPN.  In particular, a
   VPN-IP route exported by a MEG must carry a VRF Route Import Extended
   Community corresponding to the IP-VRF from which it is imported, and
   a Source AS Extended Community.

   As a result, if S is attached to a MEG, the L3VPN nodes will direct
   their MVPN C-multicast Join routes to that MEG.  Normal MVPN
   procedures will cause the traffic to be delivered to the L3VPN nodes.
   The layer 3 multicast state for (S,G) will have the MVPN tunnel on
   its OIF list.  The IIF will be the IRB interface leading to the BD
   containing S.

   If S is not attached to a MEG, the L3VPN nodes will direct their
   C-multicast Join routes to whichever MEG appears to be on the best
   route to S's subnet.  Upon receiving the C-multicast Join, that MEG
   will originate an EVPN SMET route for (S,G).  As a result, the MEG
   will receive the (S,G) traffic at layer 2 via the OISM procedures.
   The (S,G) traffic will be sent up the appropriate IRB interface, and
   the layer 3 MVPN procedures will ensure that the traffic is delivered
   to the L3VPN nodes that have requested it.  The layer 3 multicast
   state for (S,G) will have the MVPN tunnel in the OIF list, and the
   IIF will be one of the following:

   o  If S belongs to a BD that is attached to the MEG, the IIF will be
      the IRB interface to that BD;

   o  Otherwise the IIF will be the SBD IRB interface.

   Note that this works even if S is attached to a non-OISM PE, per the
   procedures of Section 5.

6.1.2.2.2.  Any-Source Multicast (ASM) Groups

   Suppose the MEG SBD-DR learns that one of the PEs in its Tenant
   Domain is interested in (*,G), traffic, where G is an Any-Source
   Multicast (ASM) group.  If there are no tenant multicast routers, the
   MEG SBD-DR SHOULD perform the "First Hop Router" (FHR) functionality
   for group G on behalf of the Tenant Domain, as described in
   [RFC7761].  This means that the MEG SBD-DR must know the identity of
   the Rendezvous Point (RP) for each group, must send Register messages
   to the Rendezvous Point, etc.

   If the MEG SBD-DR is to be the FHR for the Tenant Domain, it must see
   all the multicast traffic that is sourced from within the domain and



Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 57]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


   destined to an ASM group address.  The MEG can ensure this by
   originating an SBD-SMET route for (*,*).

   (As a possible optimization, an SBD-SMET route for (*, "any ASM
   group"), or even (*, "any ASM group that might have MVPN sources")
   may be defined in a future revision of this draft.)

   In some deployment scenarios, it may be preferred that the MEG that
   receives the (S,G) traffic over an AC be the one provides the FHR
   functionality.  This behavior is OPTIONAL.  If this option is used,
   it MUST be ensured that the MEG DR does not provide the FHR
   functionality for (S,G) traffic that is attached to another MEG; FHR
   functionality for (S,G) traffic from a particular source S MUST be
   provided by only a single router.

   Other deployment scenarios are also possible.  For example, one might
   want to configure the MEGs to themselves be RPs.  In this case, the
   RPs would have to exchange with each other information about which
   sources are active.  The method exchanging such information is
   outside the scope of this document.

6.1.2.2.3.  Source on Multihomed Segment

   Suppose S is attached to a segment that is all-active multi-homed to
   PEl and PE2.  If S is transmitting to two groups, say G1 and G2, it
   is possible that PE1 will receive the (S,G1) traffic from S while PE2
   receives the (S,G2) traffic from S.

   This creates an issue for MVPN/EVPN interworking, because there is no
   way to cause L3VPN/MVPN nodes to select PE1 as the ingress PE for
   (S,G1) traffic while selecting PE2 as the ingress PE for (S,G2)
   traffic.

   However, the following procedure ensures that the IP multicast
   traffic will still flow, even if the L3VPN/MVPN nodes picks the
   "wrong" EVPN-PE as the Upstream PE for (say) the (S,G1) traffic.

   Suppose S is on an ethernet segment, belonging to BD1, that is
   multi-homed to both PE1 and PE2, where PE1 is a MEG.  And suppose
   that IP multicast traffic from S to G travels over the AC that
   attaches the segment to PE2 .  If PE1 receives a C-multicast Source
   Tree Join (S,G) route, it MUST originate an SMET route for (S,G).
   Normal OISM procedures will then cause PE2 to send the (S,G) traffic
   to PE1 on an EVPN IP multicast tunnel.  Normal OISM procedures will
   also cause PE1 to send the (S,G) traffic up its BD1 IRB interface.
   Normal MVPN procedures will then cause PE1 to forward the traffic on
   an MVPN tunnel.  In this case, the routing is not optimal, but the
   traffic does flow correctly.



Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 58]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


6.1.2.3.  Obtaining Optimal Routing of Traffic Between MVPN and EVPN

   The routing of IP multicast traffic between MVPN nodes and EVPN nodes
   will be optimal as long as there is a MEG along the optimal route.
   There are various deployment strategies that can be used to obtain
   optimal routing between MVPN and EVPN.

   In one such scenario, a Tenant Domain will have a small number of
   strategically placed MEGs.  For example, a Data Center may have a
   small number of MEGs that connect it to a wide-area network.  Then
   the optimal route into or out of the Data Center would be through the
   MEGs.

   In this scenario, the MEGs do not need to originate VPN-IP host
   routes for the multicast sources, they only need to originate VPN-IP
   subnet routes.  The internal structure of the EVPN is completely
   hidden from the MVPN node.  EVPN actions such as MAC Mobility and
   Mass Withdrawal ([RFC7432]) have zero impact on the MVPN control
   plane.

   While this deployment scenario provides the most optimal routing and
   has the least impact on the installed based of MVPN nodes, it does
   complicate network planning considerations.

   Another way of providing routing that is close to optimal is to turn
   each EVPN PE into a MEG.  Then routing of MVPN-to-EVPN traffic is
   optimal.  However, routing of EVPN-to-MVPN traffic is not guaranteed
   to be optimal when a source host is on a multi-homed ethernet segment
   (as discussed in Section 6.1.2.2.)

   The obvious disadvantage of this method is that it requires every
   EVPN PE to be a MEG.

   The procedures specified in this document allow an operator to add
   MEG functionality to any subset of his EVPN OISM PEs.  This allows an
   operator to make whatever trade-offs he deems appropriate between
   optimal routing and MEG deployment.

6.1.2.4.  Selecting the MEG SBD-DR

   Every PE that is eligible for selection as the MEG SBD-DR originates
   an SBD-IMET route.  As stated in Section 5, these SBD-IMET routes
   carry a Multicast Flags EC with the MEG Flag set.

   These SBD-IMET routes SHOULD also carry a DF Election EC.  The DF
   Election EC and its use is specified in ([DF-Election-Framework]).
   When the route is originated, the AC-DF bit in the DF Election EC
   SHOULD be set to zero.  This bit is not used when selecting a MEG



Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 59]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


   SBD-DR, i.e., it MUST be ignored by the receiver of an SBD-IMET
   route.

   In the context of a given Tenant Domain, to select the MEG SBD-DR,
   the MEGs of the Tenant Domain perform the following procedure:

   o  From the set of received SBD-IMET routes for the given tenant
      domain, determine he candidate set of PEs that support MEG
      functionality for that domain.

   o  Select a DF Election algorithm as specified in
      [DF-Election-Framework].  Some of the possible algorithms can be
      found, e.g., in [RFC7432], [DF-Election-Framework], and
      [EVPN-DF-WEIGHTED].

   o  Apply the DF Election Algorithm (see [DF-Election-Framework]) to
      the candidate set of PEs.  The "winner" becomes the MEG SBD-DR.

   Note that if a given PE supports IPMG (Section 6.1.2) or PEG
   (Section 6.1.4) functionality as well as MEG functionality, its
   SBD-IMET routes carry only one DF Election EC.

6.1.3.  Interworking with 'Global Table Multicast'

   If multicast service to the outside sources and/or receivers is
   provided via the BGP-based "Global Table Multicast" (GTM) procedures
   of [RFC7716], the procedures of Section 6.1.2 can easily be adapted
   for EVPN/GTM interworking.  The way to adapt the MVPN procedures to
   GTM is explained in [RFC7716].

6.1.4.  Interworking with PIM

   As we have been discussing, there may be receivers in an EVPN tenant
   domain that are interested in multicast flows whose sources are
   outside the EVPN Tenant Domain.  Or there may be receivers outside an
   EVPN Tenant Domain that are interested in multicast flows whose
   sources are inside the Tenant Domain.

   If the outside sources and/or receivers are part of an MVPN,
   interworking procedures are covered in Section 6.1.2.

   There are also cases where an external source or receiver are
   attached via IP, and the layer 3 multicast routing is done via PIM.
   In this case, the interworking between the "PIM domain" and the EVPN
   tenant domain is done at L3 Gateways that perform "PIM/EVPN Gateway"
   (PEG) functionality.  A PEG is very similar to a MEG, except that its
   layer 3 multicast routing is done via PIM rather than via BGP.




Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 60]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


   If external sources or receivers for a given group are attached to a
   PEG via a layer 3 interface, that interface should be treated as a
   VRF interface attached to the Tenant Domain's L3VPN VRF.  The layer 3
   multicast routing instance for that Tenant Domain will either run PIM
   on the VRF interface or will listen for IGMP/MLD messages on that
   interface.  If the external receiver is attached elsewhere on an IP
   network, the PE has to enable PIM on its interfaces to the backbone
   network.  In both cases, the PE needs to perform PEG functionality,
   and its IMET routes must carry the Muliticast Flags EC with the PEG
   flag set.

   For each BD on which there is a multicast source or receiver, one of
   the PEGs will becomes the PEG DR.  DR selection can be done using the
   same procedures specified in Section 6.1.2.4, except with "PEG"
   substituted for "MEG".

   As long as there are no tenant multicast routers within the EVPN
   Tenant Domain, the PEGs do not need to run PIM on their IRB
   interfaces.

6.1.4.1.  Source Inside EVPN Domain

   If a PEG receives a PIM Join(S,G) from outside the EVPN tenant
   domain, it may find it necessary to create (S,G) state.  The PE needs
   to determine whether S is within the Tenant Domain.  If S is not
   within the EVPN Tenant Domain, the PE carries out normal layer 3
   multicast routing procedures.  If S is within the EVPN tenant domain,
   the IIF of the (S,G) state is set as follows:

   o  if S is on a BD that is attached to the PE, the IIF is the PE's
      IRB interface to that BD;

   o  if S is not on a BD that is attached to the PE, the IIF is the
      PE's IRB interface to the SBD.

   When the PE creates such an (S,G) state, it MUST originate (if it
   hasn't already) an SBD-SMET route for (S,G).  This will cause it to
   pull the (S,G) traffic via layer 2.  When the traffic arrives over an
   EVPN tunnel, it gets sent up an IRB interface where the layer 3
   multicast routing determines the packet's disposition.  The SBD-SMET
   route is withdrawn when the (S,G) state no longer exists (unless
   there is some other reason for not withdrawing it).

   If there are no tenant multicast routers with the EVPN tenant domain,
   there cannot be an RP in the Tenant Domain, so a PEG does not have to
   handle externally arriving PIM Join(*,G) messages.





Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 61]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


   The PEG DR for a particular BD MUST act as the a First Hop Router for
   that BD.  It will examine all (S,G) traffic on the BD, and whenever G
   is an ASM group, the PEG DR will send Register messages to the RP for
   G.  This means that the PEG DR will need to pull all the (S,G)
   traffic originating on a given BD, by originating an SMET (*,*) route
   for that BD.  If a PEG DR is the DR for all the BDS, in SHOULD
   originate just an SBD-SMET (*,*) route rather than an SMET (*,*)
   route for each BD.

   The rules for exporting IP routes to multicast sources are the same
   as those specified for MEGs in Section 6.1.2.2, except that the
   exported routes will be IP routes rather than VPN-IP routes, and it
   is not necessary to attach the VRF Route Import EC or the Source AS
   EC.

   When a source is on a multi-homed segment, the same issue discussed
   in Section 6.1.2.2.3 exists.  Suppose S is on an ethernet segment,
   belonging to BD1, that is multi-homed to both PE1 and PE2, where PE1
   is a PEG.  And suppose that IP multicast traffic from S to G travels
   over the AC that attaches the segment to PE2.  If PE1 receives an
   external PIM Join (S,G) route, it MUST originate an SMET route for
   (S,G).  Normal OISM procedures will cause PE2 to send the (S,G)
   traffic to PE1 on an EVPN IP multicast tunnel.  Normal OISM
   procedures will also cause PE1 to send the (S,G) traffic up its BD1
   IRB interface.  Normal PIM procedures will then cause PE1 to forward
   the traffic along a PIM tree.  In this case, the routing is not
   optimal, but the traffic does flow correctly.

6.1.4.2.  Source Outside EVPN Domain

   By means of normal OISM procedures, a PEG learns whether there are
   receivers in the Tenant Domain that are interested in receiving (*,G)
   or (S,G) traffic.  The PEG must determine whether S (or the RP for G)
   is outside the EVPN Tenant Domain.  If so, and if there is a receiver
   on BD1 interested in receiving such traffic, the PEG DR for BD1 is
   responsible for originating a PIM Join(S,G) or Join(*,G) control
   message.

   An alternative would be to allow any PEG that is directly attached to
   a receiver to originate the PIM Joins.  Then the PEG DR would only
   have to originate PIM Joins on behalf of receivers that are not
   attached to a PEG.  However, if this is done, it is necessary for the
   PEGs to run PIM on all their IRB interfaces, so that the PIM Assert
   procedures can be used to prevent duplicate delivery to a given BD.

   The IIF for the layer 3 (S,G) or (*,G) state is determined by normal
   PIM procedures.  If a receiver is on BD1, and the PEG DR is attached
   to BD1, its IRB interface to BD1 is added to the OIF list.  This



Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 62]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


   ensures that any receivers locally attached to the PEG DR will
   receive the traffic.  If there are receivers attached to other EVPN
   PEs, then whenever (S,G) traffic from an external source matches a
   (*,G) state, the PEG will create (S,G) state.  The IIF will be set to
   whatever external interface the traffic is expected to arrive on
   (copied from the (*,G) state), the OIF list is copied from the (*,G)
   state, and the SBD IRB interface added to the OIF list.

6.2.  Interworking with PIM via an External PIM Router

   Section 6.1 describes how to use an OISM PE router as the gateway to
   a non-EVPN multicast domain, when the EVPN tenant domain is not being
   used as an intermediate transit network for multicast.  An
   alternative approach is to have one or more external PIM routers
   (perhaps operated by a tenant) on one of the BDs of the tenant
   domain.  We will refer to this BD as the "gateway BD".

   In this model:

   o  The EVPN Tenant Domain is treated as a stub network attached to
      the external PIM routers.

   o  The external PIM routers follow normal PIM procedures, and provide
      the FHR and LHR functionality for the entire Tenant Domain.

   o  The OISM PEs do not run PIM.

   o  There MUST NOT be more than one gateway BD.

   o  If an OISM PE not attached to the gateway BD has interest in a
      given multicast flow, it conveys that interest, following normal
      OISM procedures, by originating an SBD-SMET route for that flow.

   o  If a PE attached to the gateway BD receives an SBD-SMET, it may
      need to generate and transmit a corresponding IGMP/MLD Join out
      one or more of its ACs.  (Procedures for generating an IGMP/MLD
      Join as a result of receiving an SMET route are given in
      [IGMP-Proxy].)  The PE MUST know which BD is the Gateway BD and
      MUST NOT transmit an IGMP/MLD Join to any other BDs.  Furthermore,
      even if a particular AC is part of that BD, the PE SHOULD NOT
      transmit an IGMP/MLD Join on that AC unless that an external PIM
      route is attached via that AC.

      As a result, IGMP/MLD messages will seen by the external PIM
      routers on the gateway BD, and those external PIM routers will
      send PIM Join messages externally as required.  Traffic of the
      given multicast flow will then be received by one of the external




Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 63]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


      PIM routers, and that traffic will be forwarded by that router to
      the gateway BD.

      The normal OISM procedures will then cause the given multicast
      flow to be tunneled to any PEs of the EVPN Tenant Domain that have
      interest in the flow.  PEs attached to the gateway BD will see the
      flow as originating from the gateway BD, other PEs will see the
      flow as originating from the SBD.

   o  An OISM PE attached to a gateway BD MUST set its layer 2 multicast
      state to indicate that each AC to the gateway BD has interest in
      all multicast flows.  It MUST also originate an SMET route for
      (*,*).  The procedures for originating SMET routes are discussed
      in Section 2.5.

      This will cause the OISM PEs attached to the gateway BD to receive
      all the IP multicast traffic that is sourced within the EVPN
      tenant domain, and to transmit that traffic to the gateway BD,
      where the external PIM routers will see it.  This enables the
      external PIM routers to perform FHR functions on behalf of the
      entire Tenant Domain.  (Of course, if the gateway BD has a
      multi-homed segment, only the PE that is the DF for that segment
      will transmit the multicast traffic to the segment.)

7.  Using an EVPN Tenant Domain as an Intermediate (Transit) Network for
    Multicast traffic

   In this section, we consider the scenario where one or more BDs of an
   EVPN Tenant Domain are being used to carry IP multicast traffic for
   which the source and at least one receiver are not part the tenant
   domain.  That is, one or more BDs of the Tenant Domain are
   intermediate "links" of a larger multicast tree created by PIM.

   We define a "tenant multicast router" as a multicast router, running
   PIM, that is:

   1.  attached to one or more BDs of the Tenant Domain, but

   2.  is not an EVPN PE router.

   In order an EVPN Tenant Domain to be used as a transit network for IP
   multicast, one or more of its BDs must have tenant multicast routers,
   and an OISM PE that attaching to such a BD MUST be provisioned to
   enable PIM on its IRB interface to that BD.  (This is true even if
   none of the tenant routers is on a segment attached to the PE.)
   Further, all the OISM PEs (even ones not attached to a BD with tenant
   multicast routers) MUST be provisioned to enable PIM on their SBD IRB
   interfaces.



Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 64]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


   If PIM is enabled on a particular BD, the DR Selection procedure of
   Section 6.1.2.4 MUST be replaced by the normal PIM DR Election
   procedure of [RFC7761].  Note that this may result in one of the
   tenant routers being selected as the DR, rather than one of the OISM
   PE routers.  In this case, First Hop Router and Last Hop Router
   functionality will not be performed by any of the EVPN PEs.

   A PIM control message on a particular BD is considered to be a
   link-local multicast message, and as such is sent transparently from
   PE to PE via the BUM tunnel for that BD.  This is true whether the
   control message was received from an AC, or whether it was received
   from the local layer 3 routing instance via an IRB interface.

   A PIM Join/Prune message contains three fields that are relevant to
   the present discussion:

   o  Upstream Neighbor

   o  Group Address (G)

   o  Source Address (S), omitted in the case of (*,G) Join/Prune
      messages.

   We will generally speak of a PIM Join as a "Join(S,G)" or a
   "Join(*,G)" message, and will use the term "Join(X,G)" to mean
   "either Join(S,G) or Join(*,G)".  In the context of a Join(X,G), we
   will use the term "X" to mean "S in the case of (S,G), or G's RP in
   the case of (*,G)".

   Suppose BD1 contains two tenant multicast routers, C1 and C2.
   Suppose C1 is on a segment attached to PE1, and C2 is on a segment
   attached to PE2.  When C1 sends a PIM Join(X,G) to BD1, the Upstream
   Neighbor field might be set to either PE1, PE2, or C2.  C1 chooses
   the Upstream Neighbor based on its unicast routing.  Typically, it
   will choose as the Upstream Neighbor the PIM router on BD1 that is
   "closest" (according to the unicast routing) to X.  Note that this
   will not necessarily be PE1.  PE1 may not even be visible to the
   unicast routing algorithm used by the tenant routers.  Even if it is,
   it is unlikely to be the PIM router that is closest to X.  So we need
   to consider the following two cases:

   1.   C1 sends a PIM Join(X,G) to BD1, with PE1 as the Upstream
        Neighbor.

        PE1's PIM routing instance will see the Join arrive on the BD1
        IRB interface.  If X is not within the Tenant Domain, PE1
        handles the Join according to normal PIM procedures.  This will




Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 65]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


        generally result in PE1 selecting an Upstream Neighbor and
        sending it a Join(X,G).

        If X is within the Tenant Domain, but is attached to some other
        PE, PE1 sends (if it hasn't already) an SBD-SMET route for
        (X,G).  The IIF of the layer 3 (X,G) state will be the SBD IRB
        interface, and the OIF list will include the IRB interface to
        BD1.

        The SBD-SMET route will pull the (X,G) traffic to PE1, and the
        (X,G) state will result in the (X,G) traffic being forwarded to
        C1.

        If X is within the Tenant Domain, but is attached to PE1 itself,
        no SBD-SMET route is sent.  The IIF of the layer 3 (X,G) state
        will be the IRB interface to X's BD, and the OIF list will
        include the IRB interface to BD1.

   2.   C1 sends a PIM Join(X,G) to BD1, with either PE2 or C2 as the
        Upstream Neighbor.

        PE1's PIM routing instance will see the Join arrive on the BD1
        IRB interface.  If neither X nor Upstream Neighbor is within the
        tenant domain, PE1 handles the Join according to normal PIM
        procedures.  This will NOT result in PE1 sending a Join(X,G).

        If either X or Upstream Neighbor is within the Tenant Domain,
        PE1 sends (if it hasn't already) an SBD-SMET route for (X,G).
        The IIF of the layer 3 (X,G) state will be the SBD IRB
        interface, and the OIF list will include the IRB interface to
        BD1.

        The SBD-SMET route will pull the (X,G) traffic to PE1, and the
        (X,G) state will result in the (X,G) traffic being forwarded to
        C1.

8.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to assign new flags in the "Multicast Flags
   Extended Community Flags" registry.  These flags are:

   o  IPMG

   o  MEG

   o  PEG





Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 66]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


9.  Security Considerations

   This document uses protocols and procedures defined in the normative
   references, and inherits the security considerations of those
   references.

   This document adds flags or Extended Communities (ECs) to a number of
   BGP routes, in order to signal that particular nodes support the
   OISM, IPMG, MEG, and/or PEG functionalities that are defined in this
   document.  Incorrect addition, removal, or modification of those
   flags and/or ECs will cause the procedures defined herein to
   malfunction, in which case loss or diversion of data traffic is
   possible.

10.  Acknowledgements

   The authors thank Vikram Nagarajan and Princy Elizabeth for their
   work on Section 6.2.  The authors also benefited tremendously from
   discussions with Aldrin Isaac on EVPN multicast optimizations.

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [DF-Election-Framework]
              Rabadan, J., Mohanty, S., Sajassi, A., Drake, J., Nagaraj,
              K., and S. Sathappan, "Framework for EVPN Designated
              Forwarder Election Extensibility", internet-draft draft-
              ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework-03.txt, May 2018.

   [EVPN-AR]  Rabadan, J., Ed., "Optimized Ingress Replication solution
              for EVPN", internet-draft ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir-
              03.txt, Febryary 2018.

   [EVPN-BUM]
              Zhang, Z., Lin, W., Rabadan, J., and K. Patel, "Updates on
              EVPN BUM Procedures", internet-draft ietf-bess-evpn-bum-
              procedure-updates-03.txt, April 2018.

   [EVPN-IRB]
              Sajassi, A., Salam, S., Thoria, S., Drake, J., and J.
              Rabadan, "Integrated Routing and Bridging in EVPN",
              internet-draft draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-
              forwarding-04.txt, July 2018.







Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 67]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


   [EVPN_IP_Prefix]
              Rabadan, J., Henderickx, W., Drake, J., Lin, W., and A.
              Sajassi, "IP Prefix Advertisement in EVPN", internet-
              draft ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-11.txt, May
              2018.

   [IGMP-Proxy]
              Sajassi, A., Thoria, S., Patel, K., Yeung, D., Drake, J.,
              and W. Lin, "IGMP and MLD Proxy for EVPN", internet-draft
              draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-02.txt, June 2018.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC2236]  Fenner, W., "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
              2", RFC 2236, DOI 10.17487/RFC2236, November 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2236>.

   [RFC2710]  Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast
              Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2710, October 1999,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2710>.

   [RFC3032]  Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
              Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
              Encoding", RFC 3032, DOI 10.17487/RFC3032, January 2001,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032>.

   [RFC4360]  Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended
              Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, DOI 10.17487/RFC4360,
              February 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4360>.

   [RFC6625]  Rosen, E., Ed., Rekhter, Y., Ed., Hendrickx, W., and R.
              Qiu, "Wildcards in Multicast VPN Auto-Discovery Routes",
              RFC 6625, DOI 10.17487/RFC6625, May 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6625>.

   [RFC7153]  Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "IANA Registries for BGP
              Extended Communities", RFC 7153, DOI 10.17487/RFC7153,
              March 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7153>.

   [RFC7432]  Sajassi, A., Ed., Aggarwal, R., Bitar, N., Isaac, A.,
              Uttaro, J., Drake, J., and W. Henderickx, "BGP MPLS-Based
              Ethernet VPN", RFC 7432, DOI 10.17487/RFC7432, February
              2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7432>.




Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 68]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

11.2.  Informative References

   [EVPN-BIER]
              Zhang, Z., Przygienda, T., Sajassi, A., and J. Rabadan,
              "EVPN BUM Using BIER", internet-draft ietf-bier-evpn-
              01.txt, April 2018.

   [EVPN-DF-WEIGHTED]
              Rabadan, J., Sathappan, S., Przygienda, T., Lin, W.,
              Drake, J., Sajassi, A., and S. Mohanty, "Preference-based
              EVPN DF Election", internet-draft ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df-
              01.txt, April 2018.

   [RFC4364]  Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
              Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February
              2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>.

   [RFC6513]  Rosen, E., Ed. and R. Aggarwal, Ed., "Multicast in MPLS/
              BGP IP VPNs", RFC 6513, DOI 10.17487/RFC6513, February
              2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6513>.

   [RFC6514]  Aggarwal, R., Rosen, E., Morin, T., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP
              Encodings and Procedures for Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP
              VPNs", RFC 6514, DOI 10.17487/RFC6514, February 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6514>.

   [RFC7606]  Chen, E., Ed., Scudder, J., Ed., Mohapatra, P., and K.
              Patel, "Revised Error Handling for BGP UPDATE Messages",
              RFC 7606, DOI 10.17487/RFC7606, August 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7606>.

   [RFC7716]  Zhang, J., Giuliano, L., Rosen, E., Ed., Subramanian, K.,
              and D. Pacella, "Global Table Multicast with BGP Multicast
              VPN (BGP-MVPN) Procedures", RFC 7716,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7716, December 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7716>.

   [RFC7761]  Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., Kouvelas, I.,
              Parekh, R., Zhang, Z., and L. Zheng, "Protocol Independent
              Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification
              (Revised)", STD 83, RFC 7761, DOI 10.17487/RFC7761, March
              2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7761>.





Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 69]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


   [RFC8296]  Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A.,
              Tantsura, J., Aldrin, S., and I. Meilik, "Encapsulation
              for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) in MPLS and Non-
              MPLS Networks", RFC 8296, DOI 10.17487/RFC8296, January
              2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8296>.














































Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 70]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


Appendix A.  Integrated Routing and Bridging

   This Appendix provides a short tutorial on the interaction of routing
   and bridging.  First it shows the traditional model, where bridging
   and routing are performed in separate boxes.  Then it shows the model
   specified in [EVPN-IRB], where a single box contains both routing and
   bridging functions.  The latter model is presupposed in the body of
   this document.

   Figure 1 shows a "traditional" router that only does routing and has
   no L2 bridging capabilities.  There are two LANs, LAN1 and LAN2.
   LAN1 is realized by switch1, LAN2 by switch2.  The router has an
   interface, "lan1" that attaches to LAN1 (via switch1) and an
   interface "lan2" that attachs to LAN2 (via switch2).  Each intreface
   is configured, as an IP interface, with an IP address and a subnet
   mask.

               +-------+        +--------+        +-------+
               |       |    lan1|        |lan2    |       |
       H1 -----+Switch1+--------+ Router1+--------+Switch2+------H3
               |       |        |        |        |       |
       H2 -----|       |        |        |        |       |
               +-------+        +--------+        +-------+
           |_________________|              |__________________|
               LAN1                              LAN2

             Figure 1: Conventional Router with LAN Interfaces

   IP traffic (unicast or multicast) that remains within a single subnet
   never reaches the router.  For instance, if H1 emits an ethernet
   frame with H2's MAC address in the ethernet destination address
   field, the frame will go from H1 to Switch1 to H2, without ever
   reaching the router.  Since the frame is never seen by a router, the
   IP datagram within the frame remains entirely unchanged; e.g., its
   TTL is not decremented.  The ethernet Source and Destination MAC
   addresses are not changed either.

   If H1 wants to send a unicast IP datagram to H3, which is on a
   different subnet, H1 has to be configured with the IP address of a
   "default router".  Let's assume that H1 is configured with an IP
   address of Router1 as its default router address.  H1 compares H3's
   IP address with its own IP address and IP subnet mask, and determines
   that H3 is on a different subnet.  So the packet has to be routed.
   H1 uses ARP to map Router1's IP address to a MAC address on LAN1.  H1
   then encapsulates the datagram in an ethernet frame, using router1's
   MAC address as the destination MAC address, and sends the frame to
   Router1.




Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 71]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


   Router1 then receives the frame over its lan1 interface.  Router1
   sees that the frame is addressed to it, so it removes the ethernet
   encapsulation and processes the IP datagram.  The datagram is not
   addressed to Router1, so it must be forwarded further.  Router1 does
   a lookup of the datagram's IP destination field, and determines that
   the destination (H3) can be reached via Router1's lan2 interface.
   Router1 now performs the IP processing of the datagram: it decrements
   the IP TTL, adjusts the IP header checksum (if present), may fragment
   the packet is necessary, etc.  Then the datagram (or its fragments)
   are encapsulated in an ethernet header, with Router1's MAC address on
   LAN2 as the MAC Source Address, and H3's MAC address on LAN2 (which
   Router1 determines via ARP) as the MAC Destination Address.  Finally
   the packet is sent out the lan2 interface.

   If H1 has an IP multicast datagram to send (i.e., an IP datagram
   whose Destination Address field is an IP Multicast Address), it
   encapsulates it in an ethernet frame whose MAC Destination Address is
   computed from the IP Destination Address.

   If H2 is a receiver for that multicast address, H2 will receive a
   copy of the frame, unchanged, from H1.  The MAC Source Address in the
   ethernet encapsulation does not change, the IP TTL field does not get
   decremented, etc.

   If H3 is a receiver for that multicast address, the datagram must be
   routed to H3.  In order for this to happen, Router1 must be
   configured as a multicast router, and it must accept traffic sent to
   ethernet multicast addresses.  Router1 will receive H1's multicast
   frame on its lan1 interface, will remove the ethernet encapsulation,
   and will determine how to dispatch the IP datagram based on Router1's
   multicast forwarding states.  If Router1 knows that there is a
   receiver for the multicast datagram on LAN2, makes a copy of the
   datagram, decrements the TTL (and performs any other necessary IP
   processing), then encapsulates the datagram in ethernet frame for
   LAN2.  The MAC Source Address for this frame will be Router1's MAC
   Source Address on LAN2.  The MAC Destination Address is computed from
   the IP Destination Address.  Finally, the frame is sent out Router1's
   LAN2 interface.

   Figure 2 shows an Integrated Router/Bridge that supports the routing/
   bridging integration model of [EVPN-IRB].










Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 72]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


                +------------------------------------------+
                |         Integrated Router/Bridge         |

                +-------+        +--------+        +-------+
                |       |    IRB1|   L3   |IRB2    |       |
        H1 -----+  BD1  +--------+Routing +--------+  BD2  +------H3
                |       |        |Instance|        |       |
        H2 -----|       |        |        |        |       |
                +-------+        +--------+        +-------+
           |___________________|            |____________________|
                      LAN1                              LAN2

                    Figure 2: Integrated Router/Bridge

   In Figure 2, a single box consists of one or more "L3 Routing
   Instances".  The routing/forwarding tables of a given routing
   instance is known as an IP-VRF ([EVPN-IRB]).  In the context of EVPN,
   it is convenient to think of each routing instance as representing
   the routing of a particular tenant.  Each IP-VRF is attached to one
   or more interfaces.

   When several EVPN PEs have a routing instance of the same tenant
   domain, those PEs advertise IP routes to the attached hosts.  This is
   done as specified in [EVPN-IRB].

   The integrated router/bridge shown in Figure 2 also attaches to a
   number of "Broadcast Domains" (BDs).  Each BD performs the functions
   that are performed by the bridges in Figure 1.  To the L3 routing
   instance, each BD appears to be a LAN.  The interface attaching a
   particular BD to a particular IP-VRF is known as an "IRB Interface".
   From the perspective of L3 routing, each BD is a subnet.  Thus each
   IRB interface is configured with a MAC address (which is the router's
   MAC address on the corresponding LAN), as well as an IP address and
   subnet mask.

   The integrated router/bridge shown in Figure 2 may have multiple ACs
   to each BD.  These ACs are visible only to the bridging function, not
   to the routing instance.  To the L3 routing instance, there is just
   one "interface" to each BD.

   If the L3 routing instance represents the IP routing of a particular
   tenant, the BDs attached to that routing instance are BDs belonging
   to that same tenant.

   Bridging and routing now proceed exactly as in the case of Figure 1,
   except that BD1 replaces Switch1, BD2 replaces Switch2, interface
   IRB1 replaces interface lan1, and interface IRB2 replaces interface
   lan2.



Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 73]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


   It is important to understand that an IRB interface connects an L3
   routing instance to a BD, NOT to a "MAC-VRF".  (See [RFC7432] for the
   definition of "MAC-VRF".)  A MAC-VRF may contain several BDs, as long
   as no MAC address appears in more than one BD.  From the perspective
   of the L3 routing instance, each individual BD is an individual IP
   subnet; whether each BD has its own MAC-VRF or not is irrelevant to
   the L3 routing instance.

   Figure 3 illustrates IRB when a pair of BDs (subnets) are attached to
   two different PE routers.  In this example, each BD has two segments,
   and one segment of each BD is attached to one PE router.

                +------------------------------------------+
                |        Integrated Router/Bridges         |

                +-------+        +--------+        +-------+
                |       |    IRB1|        |IRB2    |       |
        H1 -----+  BD1  +--------+   PE1  +--------+  BD2  +------H3
                |(Seg-1)|        |(L3 Rtg)|        |(Seg-1)|
        H2 -----|       |        |        |        |       |
                +-------+        +--------+        +-------+
           |___________________|     |       |____________________|
                      LAN1           |                   LAN2
                                     |
                                     |
                +-------+        +--------+        +-------+
                |       |    IRB1|        |IRB2    |       |
        H4 -----+  BD1  +--------+   PE2  +--------+  BD2  +------H5
                |(Seg-2)|        |(L3 Rtg)|        |(Seg-2)|
                |       |        |        |        |       |
                +-------+        +--------+        +-------+

        Figure 3: Integrated Router/Bridges with Distributed Subnet

   If H1 needs to send an IP packet to H4, it determines from its IP
   address and subnet mask that H4 is on the same subnet as H1.
   Although H1 and H4 are not attached to the same PE router, EVPN
   provides ethernet communication among all hosts that are on the same
   BD.  H1 thus uses ARP to find H4's MAC address, and sends an ethernet
   frame with H4's MAC address in the Destination MAC address field.
   The frame is received at PE1, but since the Destination MAC address
   is not PE1's MAC address, PE1 assumes that the frame is to remain on
   BD1.  Therefore the packet inside the frame is NOT decapsulated, and
   is NOT send up the IRB interface to PE1's routing instance.  Rather,
   standard EVPN intra-subnet procedures (as detailed in [RFC7432] are
   used to deliver the frame to PE2, which then sends it to H4.





Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 74]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


   If H1 needs to send an IP packet to H5, it determines from its IP
   address and subnet mask that H5 is NOT on the same subnet as H1.
   Assuming that H1 has been configured with the IP address of PE1 as
   its default router, H1 sends the packet in an ethernet frame with
   PE1's MAC address in its Destination MAC Address field.  PE1 receives
   the frame, and sees that the frame is addressed to it.  PE1 thus
   sends the frame up its IRB1 interface to the L3 routing instance.
   Appropriate IP processing is done (e.g., TTL decrement).  The L3
   routing instance determines that the "next hop" for H5 is PE2, so the
   packet is encapsulated (e.g., in MPLS) and sent across the backbone
   to PE2's routing instance.  PE2 will see that the packet's
   destination, H5, is on BD2 segment-2, and will send the packet down
   its IRB2 interface.  This causes the IP packet to be encapsulated in
   an ethernet frame with PE2's MAC address (on BD2) in the Source
   Address field and H5's MAC address in the Destination Address field.

   Note that if H1 has an IP packet to send to H3, the forwarding of the
   packet is handled entirely within PE1.  PE1's routing instance sees
   the packet arrive on its IRB1 interface, and then transmits the
   packet by sending it down its IRB2 interface.

   Often, all the hosts in a particular Tenant Domain will be
   provisioned with the same value of the default router IP address.
   This IP address can be assigned, as an "anycast address", to all the
   EVPN PEs attached to that Tenant Domain.  Thus although all hosts are
   provisioned with the same "default router address", the actual
   default router for a given host will be one of the PEs that is
   attached to the same ethernet segment as the host.  This provisioning
   method ensures that IP packets from a given host are handled by the
   closest EVPN PE that supports IRB.

   In the topology of Figure 3, one could imagine that H1 is configured
   with a default router address that belongs to PE2 but not to PE1.
   Inter-subnet routing would still work, but IP packets from H1 to H3
   would then follow the non-optimal path H1-->PE1-->PE2-->PE1-->H3.
   Sending traffic on this sort of path, where it leaves a router and
   then comes back to the same router, is sometimes known as
   "hairpinning".  Similarly, if PE2 supports IRB but PE1 dos not, the
   same non-optimal path from H1 to H3 would have to be followed.  To
   avoid hairpinning, each EVPN PE needs to support IRB.

   It is worth pointing out the way IRB interfaces interact with
   multicast traffic.  Referring again to Figure 3, suppose PE1 and PE2
   are functioning as IP multicast routers.  Suppose also that H3
   transmits a multicast packet, and both H1 and H4 are interested in
   receiving that packet.  PE1 will receive the packet from H3 via its
   IRB2 interface.  The ethernet encapsulation from BD2 is removed, the
   IP header processing is done, and the packet is then reencapsulated



Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 75]


Internet-Draft               evpn-irb-mcast                    July 2018


   for BD1, with PE1's MAC address in the MAC Source Address field.
   Then the packet is sent down the IRB1 interface.  Layer 2 procedures
   (as defined in [RFC7432] would then be used to deliver a copy of the
   packet locally to H1, and remotely to H4.

   Please be aware that his document modifies the semantics, described
   in the previous paragraph, of sending/receiving multicast traffic on
   an IRB interface.  This is explained in Section 1.5.1 and subsequent
   sections.

Authors' Addresses

   Wen Lin
   Juniper Networks, Inc.

   EMail: wlin@juniper.net


   Zhaohui Zhang
   Juniper Networks, Inc.

   EMail: zzhang@juniper.net


   John Drake
   Juniper Networks, Inc.

   EMail: jdrake@juniper.net


   Eric C. Rosen (editor)
   Juniper Networks, Inc.

   EMail: erosen@juniper.net


   Jorge Rabadan
   Nokia

   EMail: jorge.rabadan@nokia.com


   Ali Sajassi
   Cisco Systems

   EMail: sajassi@cisco.com





Lin, et al.             Expires January 17, 2019               [Page 76]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.127, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/